Papa Francis Considering Allowing Remarried People To Receive Communio

[AugustineA]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-divorced-woman-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html

 

Hey. What do you all make of this? Please, do not reply if you're just going to say bad or just say good, or debate. I want a real thought on the matter. Thanks.

[Credo in Deum]

I trust our Holy Father to make the right decisions. I think the Holy Father understands that some Catholics (if not the majority of them) are ignorant of Catholic teaching and are in their current situation (whatever that may be) because of either poor leadership or poor catechesis, or sadly...both.

[arfink]

I trust our Holy Father to make the right decisions. I think the Holy Father understands that some Catholics (if not the majority of them) are ignorant of Catholic teaching and are in their current situation (whatever that may be) because of either poor leadership or poor catechesis, or sadly...both.

 

This. So many Catholics have been led astray by people within the Church and by the culture in general, and their current marital situation is often not something they can be held morally culpable for.

 

Don't they already do something similar in the East? I think it's up to the couple and the pastor involved, in order to make an individual judgment on the matter, I thought.

[AugustineA]

Yes, they do things differently in the East. I posted this on an Orthodox and traditional forum, as I'm interested in the different answers. 

[KnightofChrist]

http://youtu.be/llSCDBNPvK4

[AugustineA]

I admit, my personal and simple understanding of scripture and tradition, even as a young child was much more in line with Cardinal Burke's educated opinion, and that was even outside the Church. Still interested in other people's responses. Thanks. 

[KnightofChrist]

I admit, my personal and simple understanding of scripture and tradition, even as a young child was much more in line with Cardinal Burke's educated opinion, and that was even outside the Church. Still interested in other people's responses. Thanks. 

 

Yes, and he brings up a very valid important point. All that really matters is what Christ has taught about the indissolubility of marriage.

[CatholicCid]

Given the Scriptural understanding behind both the Church's understanding of marriage and St. Paul's understanding of refraining from reception of the Eucharist when in the state of sin, I do not think this can be made as much of a blanket statement as the article seems to be trying to make it. I also don't believe that this is a matter, theologically or scripturally, that could be allowed. And, not because this should be seen as a punishment, but recognized for what it truly is: Merciful. 

 

If receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin is truly harmful, then those who are existing in such a state should not receive so as to not bring harm upon themselves.

 

Perhaps a greater pastoral understanding could be taken involving whether or not allowing those divorced and remarried, but living according to the Church (as brother and sister), could receive without causing public scandal, though that would have to be a long discussion.

Edited April 23, 2014 by CatholicCid

[BigJon16]

First thought: We don't actually know what Pope Francis said, as the Vatican would neither confirm nor deny it because it was a private phone conversation. Also, this article seems to be filled with that good old "Francis is 'with the times' and is going to change all the Church's teachings that the world doesn't agree with" charm of the secular media, and that too makes me weary..

 

Second thought: I think this (if it is really a thing) is just one of the many ways that Pope Francis and his curia are reevaluating how the Church accomplishes her mission without trying to compromise her orthodoxy. We must ask ourselves whether or not strictly following the letter of the law is pharisaic or pastoral. There are viewpoints in the Church that are on both side of the spectrum between 'following the law without the spirit' and 'following the spirit without the law,' and I don't think its right to place Pope Francis on one extreme as opposed to the other. We must be faithful to the teachings of the Church, but that faithfulness shouldn't get in the way of our mission. 

 

Also, I totally agree with Arfink. 

 

Just my two cents. :) 

[CatherineM]

There's an easy way to re admit them to communion, get their marriages normalized. Make annulments free, and put more people working on them.

[PhuturePriest]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-divorced-woman-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html

 

Hey. What do you all make of this? Please, do not reply if you're just going to say bad or just say good, or debate. I want a real thought on the matter. Thanks.

 

I think what Father Jonathan Morris thinks: It's fake. There are no citations, no names, no actual story. Just a "Vatican spokesperson".

[Basilisa Marie]

There are a bunch of good points in this thread; I especially like what Arfink and BigJohn16 said. There is a tiny smidgen of wiggle room when it comes to canon law, in that if someone were unable to get an annulment but "knew" in their most honest and very well formed heart of hearts that their previous marriage was invalid, they could be remarried and still receive communion. But that's only due to the fact that our annulment system can never be perfect and we're each ultimately responsible for the state of our own souls. Situations like that are incredibly rare, but theoretically possible. 

 

This whole thing seems to be a product of a lot of people being prone to messing up and systems that are messed up and now we're trying to pick up the pieces without breaking too many. 

[CatherineM]

After having worked in the tribunal, I have the absolute belief that we aren't giving too many annulments, we are doing too many bad or ill prepared marriages. I truly believe that divorce is a symptom of a marriage that didn't make a proper bond in the first place.

Real sacramental marriages between too mature, prepared, properly catechized adults don't end up in divorce court

[Nihil Obstat]

We do not really know what Pope Francis did or did not say, but frankly, when you get right down to it, it does not really matter. Church teaching does not change.
 
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/lest-so-many-words-complicate-a-simple-question/
 


Lest so many words complicate a simple question
March 19, 2014
Catholic discipline that precludes holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics rests on three simple points. Assuming the specifications and nuances that should flesh out these points, they are:

Catholics obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin should neither approach for nor be administered holy Communion. Canons 915, 916.
Catholics living in post-divorce ‘marriages’ are in a state of public and objective grave sin (specifically, a form of chronic adultery). CCC 2380, 2381, 2384.
Such ‘marriages’ are adulterous because true marriage is an exclusive union lasting until death. Canons 1055, 1134, 1141.
Abandon any of these three points and Church discipline in this area collapses. If marriage is not an exclusive union till death, if living in pseudo/second marriage is not objective grave sin, or if the Eucharist is not precluded for those persisting in grave sin, then divorced-and-remarried Catholics can begin receiving holy Communion today and the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family can turn its attention to other pastoral issues facing the family. But if these three assertions are sound, then the present Eucharistic discipline demands, as a matter of personal integrity and public honesty, observance by faithful and hierarchy alike, and the Synod must grapple with its pastoral ramifications.

Now, no one (at least, no one being taken seriously) in this debate denies that marriage is an exclusive union lasting until death, and few formally deny that living in pseudo/second marriage is objectively wrong—though many are confusing commission of objective sin with the incurring of personal culpability for sin and, based on their confusion, are rejecting the objective evilness of pseudo/second marriage itself. That confusion must be addressed elsewhere.

Instead, the aspect of this matter under the greatest challenge is, I suggest, whether Catholics who live in an objectively sinful state (such as pseudo/second marriage has always been reckoned) should bear the primary sacramental consequence that has always been expected regarding those known to be persisting in an objectively sinful state, namely, deprivation of holy Communion. Whatever crisis of faith some might harbor regarding Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of marriage, or whatever crisis of courage some might experience in having to call some sins by their true names, the most visible aspect of the current crisis over divorce and ‘remarriage’ concerns, I think, the reception of holy Communion thereafter.*

And so one may ask a simple question: what do we suddenly know about marriage, human falleness, and the Eucharist that the Apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors, and the Saints did not know before us? What do we face for upholding one of the Lord’s hardest sayings that they did not face before us? If, as I suspect, the answer to both questions is “nothing” (or at least, nothing persuasive of, let alone compelling, change) by what authority do we consider so great a departure from the course so-long steered by the Church?

+ + +

* Yet another idea, I pause to note, being floated these days, one whereby divorced-and-remarried Catholics ‘confess’ their sin (specifically, remarriage after divorce) but not be required to put off their sin, threatens serious harm to the sacrament of Penance as well as to Marriage and the Eucharist, but we can only deal with so many heads of this hydra at one time.

Alert readers will note that I offered a version of this argument back in December 2013. I recast it here.




http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/lets-understand-whats-at-stake/


Let’s understand what’s at stake
December 12, 2013
I suspect we’ll see more of this in coming months: certain Catholics, including some prelates, calling for the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to holy Communion, which calls will be lionized by the secular press, of course, and only occasionally countered by other Catholics, such counters being dismissed by the secular press. Pope Francis’ governing style seems unlikely to put the kibosh on pro-reception agitation or, for that matter, to discourage its occasional rebuttal. So we’ll just have to deal with it.

To me, though, the whole thing is rather simple: either holy Communion is Who the Church says it is or it isn’t; either typical divorce and remarriage by Catholics constitutes objective grave sin (nb: no one is reading souls here, rather, one is noting public conduct) or it doesn’t; and, either those manifestly remaining in objective grave sin are prohibited from reception of holy Communion, or they aren’t.

Now, since time immemorial, the Church has answered all three questions affirmatively. But if she were to answer any ONE of those questions negatively, Eucharistic discipline would certainly (and immediately, and drastically) change for divorced and remarried Catholics—and inevitably for several other groups, too. Those calling for this momentous change need, therefore, to understand exactly what they are asking the Church to do; those opposed to the change need to understand exactly what’s at stake in the call.

Now, frankly, no one in the Church is challenging the Church’s answer to the first question, but, if the Church decides that typical divorce and remarriage is not objectively sinful for Catholics, and/or if the Church decides that holy Communion need not be withheld from those who openly persist in objectively sinful conduct, then we are all in for, as the saying goes, interesting times.

 

[AugustineA]

Thanks Nihil, that was a good post, long but good.

 

It's good to get a broad spectrum of opinions on such an important topic, I appreciate everyone being measured in their responses.  :pope2: