'Divorced and remarried Catholics – We’ve got to do something'/ Poll (Freeps needed!)

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — In advance of a global synod in Rome next month, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin said Thursday that the church should consider simplifying its annulment process and lifting the ban on Holy Communion for Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried. Bishop Tobin addressed the issue in his column in the Rhode Island Catholic, the Diocese of Providence newspaper. He noted that bishops from around the world will examine the subject at the synod on “Pastoral Challenges to the Family in the Context of Evangelization,” with Pope Francis, next month and again next year.

Read Bishop Tobin's column in the Rhode Island Catholic In his column, Bishop Tobin advocates a more “pastoral approach” to the dilemma — without compromising church teachings. Any changes should be done at a global level, he said.

“Although the teaching of Christ and his Church about the permanence of marriage is clear and undeniable, the lived reality is that many individuals, for a variety of reasons perhaps — personal, catechetical or cultural — are ill-equipped to fulfill the demands of the law,” Bishop Tobin wrote.

Should divorced and civilly remarried Catholics be allowed to receive Communion? (4,005 votes) Yes: 67% (2,690) No: 33% (1,315)

While he doesn’t have all the answers, Bishop Tobin wrote, “Nevertheless, my forty-one years as a priest and nearly twenty-two as a bishop have convinced me that the status quo is unacceptable. For the spiritual well-being of the divorced and remarried members of our Catholic Family, for the salvation of their souls, we’ve got to do something!”

The answers should be determined “by the experts … including our Pope and bishops and theologians, who are a whole lot smarter and holier and a lot better versed in this than I am.”

The bishop’s column, “Divorced and Remarried Catholics — We’ve Got to Do Something!”, is his second since he took a hiatus from his biweekly “Without a Doubt” feature in June 2013. He said he took that hiatus “to relax a little bit, and refresh my perspective again. …”

“Where did you get your Bishop’s license? Out of a Cracker Jack Box?” wrote one.

“Your Excellency. It saddens me to read your words. Jesus spoke very clearly about marriage. Your argument tries to pit Jesus against Himself.”

Bishop Tobin said, “Someone on the Facebook page demanded my resignation. Some of the comments on Facebook present me as a big left-wing heretic now.” A noted conservative whose comments have sparked controversy — most recently by publicly taking issue with some of Pope Francis’ more liberal views — Bishop Tobin chuckled at the irony of being branded as “left-leaning.”

In a phone interview, Bishop Tobin said the issue “is an enormous pastoral challenge for the church.”

“I think it’s something we have to look at,” Bishop Tobin said. “I was very clear about saying I don’t have the answers. But we’ve got a challenge here. We’ve got a problem. We have to at least look at it and talk about it. Otherwise, if we go through this long synod process for the next two years and end up where we are now, that will be a failure.”

Given plummeting numbers of practicing Catholics, Bishop Tobin said by allowing people who are divorced and civilly remarried to receive Holy Communion, “it seems to me it would encourage them to participate in the life of the church.”

Wrestling with this issue, Bishop Tobin wrote, “I often think about, and truly agonize over, the many divorced Catholics who have ‘dropped out’ of the Church completely, as well as those who attend Mass faithfully every Sunday, sometimes for years, without receiving the consolation and joy of the Holy Eucharist.

“And I know that I would much rather give Holy Communion to these long-suffering souls than to pseudo-Catholic politicians who parade up the aisle every Sunday for Holy Communion and then return to their legislative chambers to defy the teachings of the Church by championing same-sex marriage and abortion.”

Bishop Tobin made news in 2009 when he forbade then-U.S. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy from receiving Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights. He said in Thursday’s phone interview that he was not referencing Kennedy in his column, calling it “an old story.”

Bishop Tobin said there is “common misperception” that people who are divorced cannot receive Communion. Divorce, in and of itself, “is not a hindrance to Holy Communion,” he said.

“It becomes a problem if someone is divorced and remarried without the blessing of the church. Of course, as I’ve said, now we have many, many people who are in that situation,” the bishop said.

“The only way that divorced people who remarry can be readmitted to Holy Communion, is to have their first marriage annulled and their second marriage blessed by the church.”

In his column, Bishop Tobin asks, “For starters, can we at least think about simplifying the annulment process so that it’s more akin to the current practice of receiving various dispensations for marriage, handled completely at the local level with the oversight of the Diocesan Bishop?”

“Can we eliminate the necessity of having detailed personal interviews, hefty fees, testimony from witnesses, psychological exams and automatic appeals to other tribunals?”

He wrote: instead, “Can we rely more on the conscientious personal judgment of spouses about the history of their marriage … and their worthiness to receive Holy Communion.”

Whatever the outcome of the deliberations in Rome, “it should be adopted by the Universal Church,” he wrote. “To impose local solutions to this widespread problem would be completely dishonest and misleading, causing only confusion and division.”

The initial version of this story was published at 8:55 a.m. Thursday and updated at 12:01 a.m. Friday.

You tell people not to answer you.Like you are all knowing.

I'm certainly not all knowing. One thing I do know (I'm absolutely positive in fact) is that I'm not at all interested in anything you have to say. Neurotic, poorly written people who throw around false accusations around turn me off. I'm funny that way.

You are not in union with the church.

Are you in union with the Roman Catholic Church.I think I asked that 3 times

Are you asking me or telling me? Make up your "mind."

I actually indulged you and answered - very clearly - in black and white. Obviously you're having enormous difficulty following a simple linear conversation.

Though it probably won't stop you from asking yet again, I'll answer yet again. In fact, I'll recycle my very last post to you - verbatim:

Okay Fatima, it's really none of your business what I do in my personal life (I don't even know you) but FWIW I am a Catholic in FULL COMMUNION with my Church. Gee, my daughter even goes to the Diocese elementary.

Why not ask some poor soul who has to deal with you in real life to help you get through the paragraph? This way the question won't have to be perpetually asked and answered.

A man and a woman marry. They produce a child. Two years later, when the child is 3 months old, the man comes home from work and tells the woman, “I made a mistake. I don’t want this. I’m divorcing you.”

He walks out. She goes home to her parents. He files for a civil divorce two weeks later.

According to the Catholic Church, what happens to the young woman? When can she remarry?

I think the first and most important thing is to look at what Jesus says about the situation:

[Mat 19:3-9 KJV] 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication πορνεία, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery μοιχεύω.

Now I don't 100% agree with John Salza (the guy who has the "Scripture Catholic" website) on this.

The first definition for the word πορνεία, according to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon, is "prostitution" (followed by "fornication" and "unchastity") -- it is often used as a metaphor for the idea of "idolatry".

The first definition for the word μοιχάω, according to this same souce, is "to have a dalliance with", followed by the idea of "adultery". It is also used as a metaphor for the idea of being unfaithful to God.

Salza makes the assertion that πορνεία merely talks about unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. Clearly, just based upon the dictionary definition of the word, that cannot be the case...it's much broader than all of that.

What does make sense is if either of the two spouses were sexually active with others prior to the marriage. Jesus talks specifically about the woman committing πορνεία...I hope that one doesn't take it too much of a stretch to include that as a prohibition for both spouses.

Think about it here: Jesus states that the two spouses become one flesh. So if Jesus was telling the truth here (for the benefit of some here who have a hard time reading, this is merely a rhetorical device, not an implication that He wouldn't be telling the truth)...then if the two are torn asunder, it would mean that each spouse would be taking a piece of the other spouse with them when they split apart. If one of the former spouses proposed being remarried, would not the third party be not only marrying the one he was marrying...would he/she not also be marrying part of the "former" spouse? (Again...if they really become "one flesh", as Jesus said they do)

What about the πορνεία bit in verse 9, above? The spouse who had committed πορνεία would have, through the sexual relations, already become "one flesh" with one or more other people prior to this marriage...so would it even be possible for a "real" marriage in such a situation to happen in the first place?

In addition to the witness of Jesus, we also have the witness of St Paul:

[1Co 7:10-11 KJV] 10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

Pretty straightforward and to the point, isn't it?

I haven't cited anything from Catholic doctrine, have I? Just Bible.

Let's look at the hypothetical that you stated...

The husband here clearly violated the commandment of the Lord and the teaching of St Paul. He is a scumbag and should have massive consequences from society for his actions...he should lose his job, be avoided by any or all women, and utterly shunned...shamed until he returns to his wife.

Having said that, does his actions mean that the two who actually became one flesh (as Jesus taught in Matt 19:5-6) are all of a sudden not one flesh? (If that was the case, then was Jesus' saying in Matthew 19 reliable?)

I know that's not the easiest answer in the world for the poor woman, but it is the Scriptural one.

Here's where the "Catholic stuff" comes into play:

The only way that they would be two fleshes rather than one is if they were never one flesh to begin with. And this is where the annulment process comes into play: it tries to examine the situation to see if there was actually a valid marriage there or not and make some kind of determination one way or the other based upon the facts that are presented and the objective criteria upon which those facts are examined.

If the process determines that the marriage wasn't valid in the first place, then the marriage is declared "null" (and void) and the two spouses are free to move on with their lives. If the marriage was determined to be valid, then, well, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

(BTW, for those who accuse "annulment" as merely being "Catholic divorce" and talk about "buying annulments" and so on...I know there have been abuses, but just because there have been individuals, including clergy [even bishops], who have abused the process doesn't mean the process is bad...it just means that there are bad people)

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.