Posted on 10/22/2013 2:05:49 PM PDT by 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.
You have OUTED yourself as being very ignorant of Church Law.
“. If you choose a non-Catholic wedding, you are not considered married by the Catholic church. If you are not Catholic, I do not see why this would bother you. If you are Catholic, you should be informed about the implications.”
WRONG! The Catholic Church honors and respects other marriages which take place in another Christian Church.
Buy this book. Read it. Then get back to all of us.
It has a VALID Imprimatur and it supports what I have posted.
Irrelevant. He is citing the Bishop of Rome in communion with the Magisterium.
I suggest the book, “With Open Arms” which has a valid Imprimatur.
From whom, Rembert Weakland? It's apparently an out-of-print booklet from 1995. There are plenty of more recent, clear and authoritative sources available for free online for anyone truly in search of the facts.
This is a debate, this is NOT settled Church law
Unless and until there is an official change in the current law, we are obliged to obey it as is.
I never claimed to be an authority on Catholicism, just relaying what I understand of Church teachings. I even stated that at the end of my post. Honor and respect are one thing, but I don’t believe that the Catholic Church considers a marriage outside of the Church to be a valid sacramental marriage. You are very angry about this subject, and I don’t think I have done anything to deserve your rudeness. Since you are so versed in Catholic law, answer me this...If someone is divorced after a marriage that was not Catholic, do they have to get that marriage annulled in order to remarry in the Catholic Church?
Love,
O2
I suggest to you that openly violating a Commandment is far more serious than a Catholic who remarries after a divorce, regardless of the circumstances involved.
Especially since you have NO right to know the details, and you absolutely have a duty to not bear false witness.
I think both of us have mistaken the other for the person who is truly angry on this thread.
And YES, prior marriages outside of the Catholic Church would require some examination by the Church, before remarriage would be granted. They are not dismissed out of hand. The Catholic Church does respect other faiths when it comes to marriage.
How is posting Church teaching "bearing false witness"?
I suggest to you that openly violating a Commandment is far more serious than a Catholic who remarries after a divorce, regardless of the circumstances involved.
How is posting Church teaching "openly violating a commandment"?
Can't seem to find the sin of "posting Church teaching" anywhere in the Catechism.
You are blindly attacking people using “Church Teaching” in an ignorant and judgmental way.
You have no way of knowing the status of any Marriage.
Nobody is required to submit any “Decree of Nullity” to you.
And? The Catholic Church, through the Tribunals, takes any previous “Internal Forum” decision VERY seriously.
When someone states the reasons for that valid decision, a formal “Decree of Nullity” is nearly always granted. However, there are countless valid reasons why pushing for a formal annulment in the External Forum might be a huge mistake.
God will explain it to you someday, if you are truly speaking with a desire to help people.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I do hope you gave the same advice to at least one other person on this thread.
To falsely accuse others of “sin” is rather serious.
The Orange and The Green
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
Oh my father was an Ulsterman, proud Protestant was he
Me mother was a Catholic girl, from County Cork was she
They were married in two churches, lived happily enough
Until the day that I was born and things got rather tough
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
Baptized by father Riley, I was rushed away by car
To be made a little Orangeman, my father's shining star
I was christened David Anthony, but still in spite of that
To my father I was William while me mother called me Pat
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
With mother every Sunday to mass I'd proudly stroll
Then after that the orange lodge would try to save my soul
For both sides tried to claim me, but I was smart because
I played the flute or played the harp, depending where I was
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
Now when I'd sing those rebel songs, much to me mother's joy,
My father would jump and say "Look here would you me boy.
That's quite enough of that lot", he'd then toss me a coin.
And he'd have me sing the Orange Flute or the Heroes of The Boyne
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
One day me ma's relations came round to visit me
Just as my father's kinfolk were all sittin' down to tea
We tried to smooth things over, but they all began to fight
And me being strictly neutral, I bashed everyone in sight
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
Now my parents never could agree about my type of school
My learning was all done at home, that's why I'm such a fool
They both passed on, god rest them, but left me caught between
That awful color problem of the orange and the green
Oh it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
Yes it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen
My father he was orange and me mother she was green
How is posting Church teaching from authoritative sources "attacking people"? This info may be helpful to some, and anyone who doesn't find it useful is certainly free to ignore it.
So? Many Catholics think gay "marriage" and abortion are also ok. When did the Church become a democracy?
The rules are the rules. Take 'em or leave 'em.
I know quite a lot about this.
You are correct, but not only sacramental marriages are binding. Any natural marriage must be reviewed. Natural marriages between two baptized Christians, especially so.
Now, since the American Church has settled on the wisdom of granting so, so many annulments, practice and doctrine vary, sometimes quite a bit. There are books which can tell you what to say, and how to say it, to practically guarantee an annulment. There are priests and monsignors who can do the same.
I don't quite grasp the internal forum solution as well as I understand annulments, but, in at least one case I am familiar with, if an annulment would turn a child of a prior marriage away from entering the Church, the public process will be discouraged.
This is similar to what the Eastern Orthodox refer to as "sacramental economy", but it is not widely known.
Is there a difference between ‘reviewed’ and annulled?
Yes, there sure is.
"Review" is the process that leads to "annulled".
After the review, you either get an annulment, or you don't.
“Yes, it can be abused. So what?”
So what? At the very least it would call into question the credibility of a Catholic marriage (and perhaps other Sacraments) because at any point in the future it can be declared “invalid” as if it never happened by a tribunal of sinners.
That it IS abused (Kennedy, et al) especially by well-heeled Americans willing to buy access to such a tribunal of sinners, making access to Communion somewhat arbitrary is something that I think Catholics (not one here) would certainly wish to reform.
Thanks for helping to make this clearer but I am still confused about non-sacramental marriages being valid from a Catholic standpoint.
My understanding is that the function of the tribunal is to determine whether or not the sacrament applied, since a sacrament cannot be undone. If the sacrament did not apply, there was never a marriage, thus the annulment.
If non-sacramental marriages are valid and need to be annulled, then I am very confused. I may not be clear on the definitions of ‘natural’, ‘binding’, and ‘valid’ in this context.
I don’t understand how there would be a need to annul a clearly non-sacramental marriage such as a civil marriage or one by a non-Catholic church were there was never any inkling of a sacrament.
I think I am still unclear about the ‘review’ part. Are there levels of review? For example, are certain marriages (civil, non-christian,etc)’automatically’ declared null since there is no question of no sacrament, but still have to have some formal tribunal ruling anyway?
I have been trying to find some of these answers elsewhere, but I’m not having much luck. If you can recommend an information source where I can find all of this stuff, it would be appreciated, and I can stop bugging you with all of these questions.
Thanks,
O2
My understanding is that, since the bride and the groom are the ministers of the sacrament, that even a Protestant or Jewish wedding results in a permanent bond (during the life of the parties), even though their ministrations to each other are defective from a Catholic sacramental point of view.
There is certainly an argument to be made that this view conflicts with some other Canons regarding marriage, but I think it is the majority view, and, more importantly, is the view of the Magisterium.
This is a helpful book, at least to get you started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.