Communion for Divorced and Remarried Couples?

[Fish and Bread]

Pope Francis has hinted that he might eventually consider making some changes to the status quo as far as communing people who divorce and remarry without religious annulments to any previous marriages either member of the new couple might have. Right now, those people are banned from communion forever, essentially, unless they unrealistically (and possibly immorally) abandon their new family and reunite with their prior spouse or live a life of celibacy, assuming they aren't able to ever get an annulment.

Annulments are very easy to get in the United States, though at some apparent financial cost (Though it's supposedly worked around for people who can't afford to pay), which is perhaps another issue for another thread as to whether that constitutes simony and should be changed (Pope Francis has said he is considering banning charging for annulments and anything associated with them), but there are still some who can't get them. And there is the perception that almost anyone can get them if their case gets heard by the right board, and the people are denied are often denied because they've run into the wrong board at the wrong time rather than any true intrinsic difference between their cases and others.

So, should the Church continue to maintain that some divorced and remarried people can never be in a state of grace while in their new marriages and can never again receive communion licitly in a Roman Catholic Church *or* should the Church allow for the general imperfection of humanity and allow divorced and remarried couples to receive the sacramental grace that comes from receiving communion in spite of their pasts? I think Jesus would commune them.

 

[mark46]

Pope Francis has hinted that he might eventually consider making some changes to the status quo as far as communing people who divorce and remarry without religious annulments to any previous marriages either member of the new couple might have. Right now, those people are banned from communion forever, essentially, unless they unrealistically (and possibly immorally) abandon their new family and reunite with their prior spouse or live a life of celibacy, assuming they aren't able to ever get an annulment.

Annulments are very easy to get in the United States, though at some apparent financial cost (Though it's supposedly worked around for people who can't afford to pay), which is perhaps another issue for another thread as to whether that constitutes simony and should be changed (Pope Francis has said he is considering banning charged for annulments), but there are still some who can't get them. And there is the perception that almost anyone can get them if their case gets heard by the right board, and the people are denied are often denied because they've run into the wrong board at the wrong time rather than any true intrinsic difference between their cases and others.

So, should the Church continue to maintain that some divorced and remarried people can never be in a state of grace while in their new marriages and can never again receive communion licitly in a Roman Catholic Church *or* should the Church allow for the general imperfection of humanity and allow divorced and remarried couples to receive the sacramental grace that comes from receiving communion in spite of their pasts? I think Jesus would commune them.

As I understand, the exclusion is only for those who first marriage was accepted as a Catholic marriage. If someone is divorced and then joins the Church, receiving is fine.

I think that Pope Francis is trying to make sense of the large number of really poor rules. This is certainly one of them.

 

[Davidnic]

I think for cases of infidelity and abuse there should be a kind of automatic annulment just like for serious offenses there is automatic excommunication. A pastor would handle it with on the ground knowledge that is based in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I am not sure how it would all work but that is a possible way to combine mercy with the sacred nature of the Sacrament.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I think for cases of infidelity and abuse there should be a kind of automatic annulment just like for serious offenses there is automatic excommunication.

That makes sense to me.

Isn't there a spot in the Gospels where Jesus condemns divorce, except in cases of infidelity? It's always seemed odd to me that Jesus makes this specific exception to the general ideal of not divorcing and then the Church doesn't accept the same exception as grounds for the divorce.

I understand that the Church believes that it has the power to bind and loose and to forgive and retain sins as Jesus handed down to St. Peter in one Gospel and to the Apostles at large in another Gospel, given that the bishops are the successors to the Apostles through the laying on of hands from the first generation of Apostles consecrating local bishops for different places all the way down to the present and that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter specifically and there is a continuous line of Popes from St. Peter to St. Francis. But if the Church has the power to bind and loose, and Christ offers a suggestion in the Gospels that they loose in this area, why do they bind? Why not be generous in all the areas where they feel Christ has given them dispensation to be?

 

[mark46]

That makes sense to me.

Isn't there a spot in the Gospels where Jesus condemns divorce, except in cases of infidelity? It's always seemed odd to me that Jesus makes this specific exception to the general ideal of not divorcing and then the Church doesn't accept the same exception as grounds for the divorce.

I understand that the Church believes that it has the power to bind and loose and to forgive and retain sins as Jesus handed down to St. Peter in one Gospel and to the Apostles at large in another Gospel, given that the bishops are the successors to the Apostles through the laying on of hands from the first generation of Apostles consecrating local bishops for different places all the way down to the present and that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter specifically and there is a continuous line of Popes from St. Peter to St. Francis. But if the Church has the power to bind and loose, and Christ offers a suggestion in the Gospels that they loose in this area, why do they bind? Why not be generous in all the areas where they feel Christ has given them dispensation to be?

What you seem to be saying is the Church, and its bishops, have powers which it uses in ways with which you disagree.

 

[Fantine]

I think it takes a lot more than a nuptial blessing to make a marriage "sacramental."

I had a Catholic marriage--almost 45 years ago. Neither my husband nor I were practicing Catholics at the time, and didn't go back to Church for ten years or so. My husband never became very religious.

I don't think that it's atypical for twenty-somethings to have church weddings because their parents and families want them to, or because they like the setting.

We went on several Marriage Encounter weekends, but we chose the ecumenical expression because that was what he was more comfortable with.

We have struggled and compromised and adjusted and are still doing all of the above. Now with his retirement. As he has settled into retirement, he has become romantic and sentimental, and I am working and somewhat impatient. In my heart I think, "If you love me, cook. Do the dishes. Change the cat litter. Love in action means more to me than a Nicholas Sparks movie." He had a long career, and probably worked 60 hours a week and had stress for most of it. I appreciate that, and I appreciated being able to be home with my children without financial worries, etc. When my parents would come to visit after we'd moved out of state, my mother would always say, "You never stop. You're always working."

But now that my husband is retired and I'm not, I could use some help.

 

[Fish and Bread]

What you seem to be saying is the Church, and its bishops, have powers which it uses in ways with which you disagree.

Am I not allowed to say that?

 

[Gnarwhal]

This all makes me curious where I would stand, should I ever join the church.

I didn't have a Catholic wedding, obviously. We were married in a non-denominational church building which neither of us had any affiliation with, by a guy who, in retrospect, I'm not even sure has ever been ordained in any denomination. His religious connections are primarily with the International House of Prayer. We divorced (officially) a little over a year ago and she remarried about nine months ago.

I often wonder if the circumstances surrounding my wedding would be considered invalid by the Catholic Church. Either way, I would wonder if they would consider giving me an annulment, and if so... how challenging that would be.

As it is, if I were to join the church, I wouldn't be allowed to take the Eucharist because I'm divorced?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Pope Francis has hinted that he might eventually consider making some changes to the status quo as far as communing people who divorce and remarry without religious annulments to any previous marriages either member of the new couple might have.

He has?

 

[Fish and Bread]

He has?

"Hinted that he might", as I said, yes. Announced a definitive intent to, no. Here are a couple articles in which you can see things that might be interpreted as such hints from the Pope that he might be open to such a change at some point:

A Big Heart Open to God | America Magazine

Catholic church prepares for conflict on allowing holy communion for divorcees | World news | The Guardian

http://catholicphilly.com/2014/05/think-tank/commentaries/pope-francis-and-divorce/

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I'm sorry but no matter how hard I look, I see no direct quotes indicating what you said in the OP. I only see the opinions of others.

 

[mark46]

Am I not allowed to say that?

Of course you have the right to say that.

I was simply shortening the argument.

There are many, many areas where the bishops and Vatican have considerable leeway and power. The give us hundreds, even thousands of man made rules.

Both you and I disagree with this particular rule.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sin is sin. If one is sincere and confesses with a contrite heart, they should be absolved and admitted to the Eucharist, in my opinion.

 

[Tallguy88]

This all makes me curious where I would stand, should I ever join the church.

I didn't have a Catholic wedding, obviously. We were married in a non-denominational church building which neither of us had any affiliation with, by a guy who, in retrospect, I'm not even sure has ever been ordained in any denomination. His religious connections are primarily with the International House of Prayer. We divorced (officially) a little over a year ago and she remarried about nine months ago.

I often wonder if the circumstances surrounding my wedding would be considered invalid by the Catholic Church. Either way, I would wonder if they would consider giving me an annulment, and if so... how challenging that would be.

As it is, if I were to join the church, I wouldn't be allowed to take the Eucharist because I'm divorced?

Only if you are remarried without having an annulment. Just being divorced is not a bar to Communion.

 

[Tallguy88]

Sin is sin. If one is sincere and confesses with a contrite heart, they should be absolved and admitted to the Eucharist, in my opinion.

Basically this. I don't see why Confession doesn't absolve the sin of divorce and remarriage, especially when the divorce was the other person's fault/desire. The current system punishes the innocent party as much as the guilty party.

 

[Rhamiel]

Basically this. I don't see why Confession doesn't absolve the sin of divorce and remarriage, especially when the divorce was the other person's fault/desire. The current system punishes the innocent party as much as the guilty party.

because the sin is ongoing
like I can not go to confession WHILE I am still stabbing someone to death

"oh yes father, I am very sorry for stabbing that poor fellow"
"he's still stabbing me!"
"shut up you"

that's not how confession works

 

[Tallguy88]

because the sin is ongoing
like I can not go to confession WHILE I am still stabbing someone to death

"oh yes father, I am very sorry for stabbing that poor fellow"
"he's still stabbing me!"
"shut up you"

that's not how confession works

Using your analogy, the current system punishes the person being stabbed just as much as the person doing the stabbing.

 

[Rhamiel]

F&B

Isn't there a spot in the Gospels where Jesus condemns divorce, except in cases of infidelity?

well I think the term Jesus uses is "put away"
does this mean a divorce like the modern understanding, or is this something akin to more of just a separation

the Catholic Church does recognize that sometimes people are not able to live together, for the physical, mental, or spiritual health of one or both of the spouses

 

[Rhamiel]

Using your analogy, the current system punishes the person being stabbed just as much as the person doing the stabbing.

you mean people did not want their marriage to end but were abandoned by their spouse?

 

[Tallguy88]

you mean people did not want their marriage to end but were abandoned by their spouse?

Yes, abused, cheated on, and/or abandoned. Or the divorce was initiated by one spouse against the wishes of the other one. There is no way to legally prevent a divorce nowadays in the US. As long as one spouse can meet the criteria for a legal divorce (in a state without no-fault divorce) then a divorce will be granted, regardless if tge other party does not want a divorce.

There is no recourse for these people in the Church in the current system.