Is Communion for Divorced and Remarried People Really a Doctrinal Issue?

[Fish and Bread]

Some conservative Catholics are implying that the Pope and/or certain bishops are heretical, because they seem to be opening the door in some circumstances for communing people who have divorced and remarried. Leaving aside for the moment that I view true religion as something that should always be growing and evolving, and progressing toward the kingdom of heaven, and that random doctrines shouldn't necessarily be considered as written in stone just because someone thought something in 1308AD (Although I personally think Cardinal Burke would potentially benefit from reading the final line of Pope Boniface VIII's encyclical written in that year ), I think there is a more basic question here, which is: Is whether or not people are admitted to communion doctrinal at all? It's not heretical if it's not a doctrine in the first place.

Some conservatives are saying admitting divorced and remarried people to communion is heretical because they feel that the Church's doctrinal teaching is that marriage is indissoluble- i.e. "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Mark 10:9). However, does admitting people to communion in those circumstances really saying that marriage isn't indissoluble? Is it recognizing their new marriage as a sacramental marriage in the eyes of God? I don't think it's necessarily saying that. I've yet to see, for example, an offer be proffered to have people who were married inside the Roman Catholic Church and divorced actually be remarried in the Roman Catholic Church with a priest in front of the altar, unless their prior marriage or marriages are annulled (Declared null), which is something that has gone on for many centuries.

Maybe this policy is more about grace, kindness, pastoral sensitivity, and an understanding that humanity is fallen, and that God still welcomes us with all of our brokenness to God's table to partake with faith and thanksgiving. Is that really so horrible an idea? Does that really alter *doctrine* or just *discipline* (rules)?

In a sense, Christianity only exists in it's current form because Jesus violated the rules. He grafted the gentiles in as Sons of Abraham. St. Peter, St. James, and St. Paul later agreed that new converts to Christianity would not have to follow the old Jewish law and be circumcised and keep kosher (Acts 15). Granted, in Jesus' case, he was changing his own rule, but it wasn't a bad thing. Maybe it's not always a bad thing when the Church changes it's rules either- especially when it's in the direction of greater inclusion.

 

[archer75]

Did you mean Unam Sanctam?

 

[Martinius]

I think we do connect communion and marriage, when in reality they should be two separate areas of doctrine. There is nothing in the words of Jesus or in the Gospels about who can receive communion. Communion as we know it was absent in the early church. It is a concept that was developed over time. The rules for who can receive it and who shouldn't were made by people. They can be changed by people.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Did you mean Unam Sanctam?

That's the one. Normally not my favorite encyclical, but...

 

[Fantine]

I think a lot about appearances and substance.

Emotionally, I think that concern is more about the Church "giving scandal." I knew someone who was invalidly married for thirty years, after being widowed young. Her second husband, a Baptist, thought all the annulment stuff was a bunch of hooey--he wasn't a Catholic, so why should he abide by their rules?

Until she made the mistake of telling a very orthodox priest who would no longer give her Communion, no one cared. Her husband was much older, sick, had lost 60 pounds, and she was pretty much his caregiver.

Appearances, not substance. The substance was that a good woman was taking care of the man who helped her raise her daughters when she was a young woman. The appearance was that this couple was living in sin (and, I'm sure, as brother and sister...)

She changed parishes. New priest was more sensible. He talked to husband. Husband got annulment. Marriage was validated. Happy ending...

But I think about all the "sacramental marriages" that may be affected by adultery, addictions, alcoholism, emotional abuse....and they're all going to Communion.

My friend, unconditionally loving her elderly, sick husband, had the substance but not the appearance...

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know whether its doctrine or praxis but I think it reflects a broken religious culture that doesn't understand the meaning of mercy. They might talk about it but they don't feel it in their soul, they have not allowed it to become who they are.

At one time in my life I think I would have considered being Roman Catholic but in my current living situation, I doubt I could receive any sacraments from your church.

 

[Martinius]

I think a lot about appearances and substance.

Emotionally, I think that concern is more about the Church "giving scandal."

You hit the nail. It is the appearance of scandal, which coming from a very flawed Church hierarchy, is the height of irony.

I heard the same message from a couple of priests. In this case it was about a couple who were both divorced and who had a civil marriage. The annulments were in process (and were both eventually granted). One priest told them not to worry about it, and tp continue coming to Mass and receiving communion. One of the two was also a lector and the priest said, when asked by the person if they should continue, to keep lectoring until someone complains. No one ever did.

A different priest at another parish who later married the couple, now with their annulments, was not concerned about their "status" and performed the ceremony to make their marriage "official" in the eyes and rules of the Church.

At no time did either of these priests, nor two others who served the parishes, tell this couple not to come to communion.

In this situation, it seemed to be all about appearances. As long as there was no obvious scandal, the priests were fine with the situation.

 

[football5680]

What if the somebody who thought something happened to be Jesus and Saint Paul 2000 years ago? I know it is not as modern as the 1300's but they seem like two pretty good sources.

Jesus was clear about the indissolubility of marriage and he said anybody who divorces and remarries commits adultery. This is not an act of adultery, it is a state of adultery which is continuous until it is rectified. Saint Paul said "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27)

The doctrine is derived by connecting these two simple teachings.

It would contradict the Faith if any Catholic, including the Pope, said that a person can receive Holy Communion without repenting of grave sin, or that living in a marital way with someone who is not his or her spouse is not a state of grave sin, or that there is no such thing as an act that is always and everywhere evil and can send a person to perdition. Thus, I join my brother Cardinals in making a plea for an unmistakable clarification from Pope Francis himself. His voice, the voice of the Successor of Saint Peter, can dispel any questions about the issue.

 

[Fantine]

And if Jesus saw an older woman caring for an elderly, sick man who had loved her unconditionally He wouldn't say, "Go leave him. I'm giving you an out. You're not sacramentally married, so buy a condo in Florida and sit on the beach."

He would walk with the couple, he would love them, and--being fully human and fully divine--he would even admire them, as I did.

 

[FireDragon76]

Saint Paul said "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27)

Troughout the centuries people have abused the good things of God to oppress the marginalized and the outcast. The abuse of that above passage is just one example of this. Our hermeneutic of the Scriptures should be shaped by the grace and mercy of Christ, especially his preferential love for the least, the lost, and the last.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

It's not so much the rules that bother me. It's the self-appointed umpires who like to remind you of them, that do. They seem to get a thrill out of being guardians of Church doctrine.