Can't receive Holy Communion

[DeeDee]

One of the people in my prayer group told me yesterday that a priest told her because she married a divorced man she can't receive Holy Communion. She was devastated, crying so hard she could hardly talk. I felt so sorry for her and so angry that a priest told her this. I can't imagine Jesus ever telling anyone he/she would be separated from Him this way. It seems so cruel. My friend is very devout and this is crushing her. What happened to love and and compassion? I feel so sad for my friend.

[SarahB]

If his first marriage is a sacramental one then unless he obtains an annulment she can't recieve Holy Communion because that is technically adultery.

[thessalonian]

Sounds like he was merciful to me.

1 Cor 11
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
[27]
[b]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [/b]


It is sacralidge to partake of the Lord's Supper without repentence first. The priest did his duty. Praise God for his courage and resolve. I feel sad for her as well. I hope that either a) she will terminate the relationship or B, see if the situaltion can be rectified and the man's marriage was never valid, or C) live as brother and sister in order to avoid adultery.

Edited August 24, 2005 by thessalonian

[DeeDee]

His first marriage was not sacramental. I encouraged her to speak to her pastor and appeal to the Bishop of the diocese. Hopefully something will come of that.

[quote name='SarahB' date='Aug 24 2005, 09:02 AM']If his first marriage is a sacramental one then unless he obtains an annulment she can't recieve Holy Communion because that is technically adultery.
[right][snapback]697101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Aloysius]

they are not married if the man's first marriage was a sacrament.

this is a very difficult situation, but I would suggest to your friend to get in touch with a canon lawyer and look into the conditions surrounding her boyfriend's first marriage to see if it was a valid sacrament. if it was, those two souls are still joined together and no one on earth has the power to separate them. what God has joined together let no man separate.

if the first marriage was sacramental, she would be committing grave sin by conjugal acts with this boyfriend of hers.

if it was not sacramental, then the canon lawyer will help them to seek an annulment.

[edit: I only referred to the man as a "boyfriend" because of the questionable nature of a valid marriage here. I do not know if it is a valid marriage, therefore I would feel uncomfortable referring to him as her "husband" until such a time as that is comfirmed]

either way, they must have their marriage done in the Church and received by the priest before the Church recognizes them as married and considers any conjugal acts between them licit.

[avemaria40]

that's sad i hope she gets it sorted out.

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 24 2005, 11:09 AM']they are not married if the man's first marriage was a sacrament.

this is a very difficult situation, but I would suggest to your friend to get in touch with a canon lawyer and look into the conditions surrounding her boyfriend's first marriage to see if it was a valid sacrament.  if it was, those two souls are still joined together and no one on earth has the power to separate them.  what God has joined together let no man separate.

if the first marriage was sacramental, she would be committing grave sin by conjugal acts with this boyfriend of hers.

if it was not sacramental, then the canon lawyer will help them to seek an annulment.

[edit: I only referred to the man as a "boyfriend" because of the questionable nature of a valid marriage here.  I do not know if it is a valid marriage, therefore I would feel uncomfortable referring to him as her "husband" until such a time as that is comfirmed]
[right][snapback]697107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



What defines a sacramental marriage and what makes it invalid?

[Aloysius]

ask a canon lawyer.

from a simplified version: there must be real mutual consent between the couple, and competant understanding that they are joining themselves together in matrimony.

[b]there is no such thing as divorce[/b]

[prose]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM"] Click here to view the exact text of the code of Canon Law on Marrital Consent.[/url]

The following are grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church.

Insufficient use of reason (Canon 1095, 10)

You or your spouse did not know what was happening during the marriage ceremony because of insanity, mental illness, or a lack of consciousness.

Grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties (Canon 1095, 20)

You or your spouse was affected by some serious circumstances or factors that made you unable to judge or evaluate either the decision to marry or the ability to create a true marital relationship.

Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital obligations (Canon 1095, 30)

You or your spouse, at the time of consent, was unable to fulfill the obligations of marriage because of a serious psychological disorder or other condition.

Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1)

You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Error of person (Canon 1097, sec. 1)

You or your spouse intended to marry a specific individual who was not the individual with whom marriage was celebrated. (For example, mail order brides; otherwise, this rarely occurs in the United States.)

Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)

You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended.

Fraud (Canon 1098)

You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.

Total willful exclusion of marriage (Canon 1101, sec. 2)

You or your spouse did not intend to contract marriage as the law of the Catholic Church understands marriage. Rather, the ceremony was observed solely as a means of obtaining something other than marriage itself, e.g., to obtain legal status in the country or to legitimize a child.

Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other's right to sexual acts open to procreation.

Willful exclusion of marital fidelity (Canon 1101, 12)

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to remain faithful.

Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2)

You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce.

Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)

You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area.

Past condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)

You or your spouse attached a past condition so your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided that you have never been married before, I will marry you provided that you have graduated from college.

Present condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)

You or your spouse attached a present condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist, e.g., I will marry you provided you don't have any debt.

Force (Canon 1103)

You or your spouse married because of an external physical or moral force that you could not resist.

Fear (1103)

You or your spouse chose to marry because of fear that was grave and inescapable and was caused by an outside source.

Error regarding marital unity that determined the will (1099)

You or your spouse married believing that marriage was not necessarily an exclusive relationship.

Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099)

You or your spouse married believing that civil law had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce.

Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099)

You and your spouse married believing that marriage is not a religious or sacred relationship but merely a civil contract or arrangement.

Lack of new consent during convalidation (Canons 1157,1160)

After your civil marriage, you and your spouse participated in a Catholic ceremony and you or your spouse believed that (1) you were already married, (2) the Catholic ceremony was merely a blessing, and (3) the consent given during. the Catholic ceremony had no real effect

[son_of_angels]

If a spouse commits adultery or is abusive, doesn't that qualify also for an annulment. Didn't Jesus say "except for marital unfaithfulness" when referring to divorce itself?

[IcePrincessKRS]

The priest was right. Its far better for her to refrain from receiving the Eucharist than to receive when its possible she is in a state of mortal sin. Her husband's first marriage needs to be examined to be sure that it was not sacramental. I know a couple who the wife was married before in a civil marriage but they still had to have it reviewed by the anullment comitties before they could get married in the Church. Its for the sake of her soul, as sad as it is that she is unable to receive Our Lord, the priest was right.

[avemaria40]

that post did address marital unfaithfulness

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Aug 24 2005, 11:30 AM']If a spouse commits adultery or is abusive, doesn't that qualify also for an annulment.  Didn't Jesus say "except for marital unfaithfulness" when referring to divorce itself?
[right][snapback]697226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No. An annulment doesn't dissolve a marriage. It is a declaration that, in review of the evidence, a marriage actually never took place.

Jesus said that divorce was permittable when one partner or the other becomes dangerous to live with. But He doesn't permit re-marriage. A divorce is permissable in order that living seperatly be made possible. But the couple remains married.


God bless.

Edited August 24, 2005 by Jake Huether

[son_of_angels]

Thanks for the answer.

P.S. You HAVE to tell me where you got that quote from in your signature, Jake.

Edited August 24, 2005 by son_of_angels

[prose]

[quote] Willful exclusion of marital fidelity (Canon 1101, 12)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to remain faithful.

Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce.[/quote]

I think that covers a lot of infedelity cases. I don't know details about the man's case, but I think this is likely what may have happened.

[prose]

Forgot to mention, annulment proceedings can take a year or more. You may want to suggest to her that he start the ball rolling now.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Aug 24 2005, 12:30 PM']If a spouse commits adultery or is abusive, doesn't that qualify also for an annulment.  Didn't Jesus say "except for marital unfaithfulness" when referring to divorce itself?
[right][snapback]697226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If you look at other verserse it appears that Jesus allowed divorce in such a circumstance but not remarriage.

Matt.5
[31] "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
[32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Note it does not say you can marry someone who is divorced becaue of unchastity. It says "WHOEVER MARRIES A DIVORCE WOMAN commits adultery".

One has not committed a sin in the Catholic Church by civially divorcing in order to keep the children provided for, as long as they do not see the marriage as disolved. The problem with divorce is precisely the problem of this thread. Divorce and remarriage is adultery.

Blessings

[Brother Adam]

Jesus NEVER permits divorce. As someone mentioned there is no such thing as divorce. Marriage is a sacrament and is forever until death. Jesus quotes Moses who allowed priests to issue 'writs of divorce' that allowed the husband and wife to be separated because the men were literally killing their wives as it was the only religious recourse out of a divorce. Scott Hahn, Fr. Larry Richards, and JPII all give great talks on this.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='DeeDee' date='Aug 24 2005, 11:59 AM']My friend is very devout [right][snapback]697099[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well then she understands the reasoning behind why she is not in Communion with the Church.

It's a sad situation. I hope his first marriage was not a sacrament

[Paladin D]

I pray everything works out for your friend, [b]DeeDee[/b].