CDF confirms Church ban on Communion for divorced/remarried

Catholic Culture ^ | October 22, 2013 | Diogenes

[NYer]

In a lengthy statement published in L’Osservatore Romano, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has strongly affirmed the Church’s teaching that Catholics who are divorced and remarried may not receive Communion.

Following the announcement that an extraordinary meeting of the Synod of Bishops will be held in 2014 to discuss pastoral care for families, there has been widespread speculation that the Synod might make a change in the Church’s rule withholding Communion from Catholics who are divorced and remarried. But in a statement made public on October 22, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller observed that the Church’s teaching is not subject to change.

L’Osservatore Romano published the “extensive contribution” by Archbishop Müller in its entirety, giving unusual prominence to the statement. The Vatican newspaper explained that public question on “this pressing subject” called for explanation of the Church’s stand.

Archbishop Müller, too, acknowledged the keen interest in the topic. He said at the start of his statement that the “increasing number of persons affected in countries of ancient Christian tradition” had made the pastoral care for Catholics who are divorced and remarried a matter of urgent pastoral priority.

The CDF leader observed that both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have called for new efforts to provide spiritual support for Catholics who are divorced and remarried. However, he said, “the care of remarried divorcees must not be reduced to the question of receiving the Eucharist.”

Archbishop Müller insisted that the care for divorced/remarried Catholics “must be explored in a manner that is consistent with Catholic doctrine on marriage.” He noted that the Church has clearly and consistently taught that the bond of Christian marriage is indissoluble. “It designates a reality that comes from God and is therefore no longer at man’s disposal,” the CDF prefect wrote.

Examining the issue in light of Scripture and Tradition, the archbishop explains that unless a marriage has been found to be null by an ecclesiastical tribunal, divorced and remarried Catholics are obliged to refrain from receiving Communion. The single exception allowed by pastoral practice, he said, comes when a 2nd marital union cannot be ended (perhaps for the sake of children), and the partners make a commitment to live as brother and sister.

Archbishop Müller explicitly rejected the suggestion that divorced/remarried Catholics should make their own decision on whether they should receive Communion. That argument, he noted, “based on a problematical concept of ‘conscience,’ was rejected by a document of the CDF in 1994.” Similarly he rejected the policies of Orthodox churches allowing for divorce in some cases. “This practice cannot be reconciled with God’s will, as expressed unambiguously in Jesus’ sayings about the indissolubility of marriage,” he wrote. Throughout his statement Archbishop Müller strongly emphasized the Christian understanding of marriage as a sacrament. “If marriage is secularized or regarded as a purely natural reality, its sacrament character is obscured,” he remarked.

The archbishop did offer one argument that might be pursued by the 2014 Synod, suggesting that many Christians are not entering into valid sacramental marriages. He explained:

Today’s mentality is largely opposed to the Christian understanding of marriage, with regard to its indissolubility and its openness to children. Because many Christians are influenced by this, marriages nowadays are probably invalid more often than they were previously, because there is a lack of desire for marriage in accordance with Catholic teaching, and there is too little socialization within an environment of faith. Therefore assessment of the validity of marriage is important and can help to solve problems.

[NYer]

Fr. Z weigh's in with this piece from his blog - WDTPRS.

---

Archbp. Müller (CDF) on Communion for divorced/remarried. Liberals’ panic to follow

In tomorrow’s edition of L’Osservatore Romano there is a long essay (4000+ words) by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbp. Müller, on the hotly-debate issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried. (I haven’t checked it against the Italian yet.)

I mentioned that I had been hearing rumblings about a piece in L’O for a little while. This seems to be it.

Müller opposes the various solutions that have been presented for the divorced and remarried. This is not to say that the Prefect believes it impossible for the Church ultimately to find a solution to the dilemma. Rejecting some proposed solutions is different from rejecting any possible solution. (Please, those of you in Columbia Heights, don’t freak out when you read that and dash about like Chicken Little. Theologians make distinctions. Rejection of proposed solutions could be part of a process.)

At the core of Müller’s piece there seems to be a dismantling of all the arguments that depend mostly on “mercy” without the concomitant dimension of justice, the Lord’s own teaching, etc.

This is going to be spun by the left as the Bad Guy’s attempt to stop Francis.

Müller won’t be presented as the voice of reason. No, he will be the Bad Guy.

Fishwrap will say something nasty about him, something personal, like, “Now that Müller is secure in his appointment as Prefect, he feels free to attack ‘mercy’.”

Then they will find a picture of Müller scowling.

It is so predictable.

Here is a sample from Müller’s piece:

A further case for the admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments is argued in terms of mercy. Given that Jesus himself showed solidarity with the suffering and poured out his merciful love upon them, mercy is said to be a distinctive quality of true discipleship. This is correct, but it misses the mark when adopted as an argument in the field of sacramental theology. The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same. An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man. Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church. Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfil them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father.

[Sacajaweau]

Many years ago when we had to fast all night for communion, I was delivering newspapers on Easter Sunday with my bro. A nice lady gave us some candy. I ate a couple pieces and then realized I broke my fast.

God patted me on the head and said "Don't worry about it". I received communion with absolutely no ill feeling.

A vow does not condemn you to a life of hell. Make your own decision. All these rules are man made.

Gays and abortionists...whole different story.

[GreyFriar]

Gee its nice to know that Teddy Kennedy is finally ineligible for communion. What about folks like VP Biden or Nancy Pelosi who firmly support abortion and birth control?

[Pyro7480]

All these rules are man made.

1 Cor. 11: 27-29?

[Yossarian]

I received communion with absolutely no ill feeling.

🎶♫Feelings, wo-o-o feelings, ♩♬ wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms.🎶♫♩

Jesus Himself instituted the Eucharist, as documented in John 6.

One would hope that if you are looking to literally commune with the Creator of everything, who dwarfs you like an elephant to an ant to the power of infinity, that you would care enough to not mix Him with cheap sugar.

Kids may make mistakes, as do adults. But at least adults should own up to mistakes, not dismiss the rules as being arbitrary.

[Kansas58]

There is a Commandment against “bearing false witness against they neighbor”

Once granted a formal “Annulment” by a Church Tribunal, no Catholic is under ANY obligation to reveal that fact to anyone, other than another Priest prior to getting remarried in a Catholic ceremony.

Also? Yes, a VALID marriage can not end through Civil Divorce.

However? The Church Tribunal does not “end” a Valid Marriage. A Church Tribunal either affirms that a Marriage was indeed valid, or that it was never a Sacramental Marriage.

In other words? If the Marriage was NEVER valid in the First Place? There are lots of remarried Catholics who, indeed, had an INVALID First Marriage who never subjected themselves to the Annulment Tribunal.

There is an “Internal Forum” or Conscience provision in the Catholic faith. Recognized by MANY Popes, MANY Vatican Councils and which is a valid response to this issue. In fact, the “Internal Forum” or the INFORMED Conscience as final authority in ALL matters, has been Church Doctrine on all issues, not just divorce and remarriage.

Yes, it can be abused. So what? Does anyone honestly want to claim that the formal annulment process in the “External Form” is not abused?

Those who obsess over this issue are often being judgmental, bearing false witness, and are violating a Commandment in that regard.

[BlatherNaut]

The "internal forum" is not applicable to public matters such as marriage.

Internal Forum. Sometimes it is suggested to individuals or couples that they can resolve marital issues concerning a first marriage in the "internal forum." This means essentially in the confessional or in the privacy of their conscience. Someone who is divorced and remarried will be told that they do not have to seek a Decree of Nullity to validate the present marriage, rather being convinced in their own conscience that their first marriage was invalid they can return to the sacraments. This is not, however, the case. Marriage is not a private affair but a social institution, one safeguarded by the Church according to the will of Christ. The Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church's canonical processes (a marriage tribunal).

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

[longfellowsmuse]

Thou shall not commit adultery.... you don’t have to follow it if you don’t want to ( there’s that free will thing) BUT it is God’s rule.

by the way are you still a practicing Catholic?

[Kansas58]

There is always a turf battle in ANY institution.
The Catholic Church is NOT immune.
There is pride and envy and egotistical infighting on many fronts in the Church, and this has ALWAYS been the case.
Even Peter and Paul had their fights on doctrine.
We can both post on and on with documents from various sources and authorities.
The fact remains that GOD has the final authority.
The fact remains that God's servants are Earth are imperfect human beings who might make bad decisions in any Marriage Tribunal.
The fact remains that NO Pope, speaking from the Throne of St. Peter, claiming full infallibility, has EVER said that Divorced Catholics could not, under any circumstance, remarry without a Marriage Tribunal.
The fact REMAINS that if a Priests ABSOLVES Catholics, in the Confessional, based on an “internal forum” or “Conscience” decision, that that forgiveness STANDS!

Correct?

Do you claim that the Church has EVER invalidated an absolution granted in the Confessional?

[Bigg Red]

Kids may make mistakes, as do adults. But at least adults should own up to mistakes, not dismiss the rules as being arbitrary.

***
Well said!

[Bigg Red]

they neighbor

**
Is that anything like thy neighbor?

[NYer]

Gee its nice to know that Teddy Kennedy is finally ineligible for communion. What about folks like VP Biden or Nancy Pelosi who firmly support abortion and birth control?

I will spare you the "that's a great question!" (which it is) and cite Kansas58:

The Church Tribunal does not “end” a Valid Marriage. A Church Tribunal either affirms that a Marriage was indeed valid, or that it was never a Sacramental Marriage.

In other words? If the Marriage was NEVER valid in the First Place? There are lots of remarried Catholics who, indeed, had an INVALID First Marriage who never subjected themselves to the Annulment Tribunal.

Building on that statement, one delves deeper into the conscience (a/k/a soul) of those responsible. A tribunal can only ask a series of questions to determine the validity of a marriage and make a determination based on the respondent's responses. This neglects the conscience, thus leaving that to the individual and God. IOW, a catholic who marries in a "starry eyed" state, knowing full well that the impending marriage is doomed to failure, can later turn around and submit a litany of valid arguments as to why the marriage was invalid. The church tribunal can only act on what has been presented; it cannot read the heart of the individual.

That's a rather long winded way of saying that if I skirted pre-marital classes and married someone I knew was all wrong, then later divorced, I could justify the request for annulment based on any one of a series of valid qualifications for dissolution of a sacramental marriage. Ultimately, regardless of how the church rules (it is human), I will stand before God one day and He will be the judge. Does that make any sense? It's a matter of conscience.

[BlatherNaut]

Do you claim that the Church has EVER invalidated an absolution granted in the Confessional?

Red herring. Church teaching is clear and unequivocal on this matter. Our Lord established the Catholic Church - the Bride of Christ - to lead us to heaven, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Deliberate disobedience to Church teaching is deliberate disobedience to God, and He knows our motivations if we try to do an end run around His teachings (a decision that we will some day have to answer for). It's a struggle to obey teachings we personally find difficult (and sometimes even repugnant) "but with God all things are possible".

St. Pio: "The will of the authorities is the will of God."

[terycarl]

A vow does not condemn you to a life of hell. Make your own decision. All these rules are man made. breaking a vow can....all rules are man made by the authority given to the catholic church by christ...be careful when ignoring them....

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

All these rules are man made.

Someone famous once said, "If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."

And, "he who hears you, hears Me."

FWIW.

[terycarl]

Priests ABSOLVES Catholics, in the Confessional, based on an “internal forum” or “Conscience” decision, that that forgiveness STANDS!

nope...when a priest forgives your sin in a confessional, it is based on your intention to not commit the same sin over again.....if you continue your sexual relationship with a second wife....you are still in a state of sin.

[Kansas58]

Hey, I am human too.
Thy

I am not in the hood lol

[terycarl]

Do you claim that the Church has EVER invalidated an absolution granted in the Confessional?

happens all the time...if you make an invalid confession....ie. no remorse for the sin, no intention to at least attempt to not repeat the sin, for a confession to impress others that you are going to confession, several other situations result in an INVALID confession...

[pbear8]

Non serviam