Four times the Church has held her ground on [no] Communion for the divorced and remarried

The argument that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics (lacking annulments) be allowed to receive the Eucharist is kind of like 40+ year-old, re-heated mashed potatoes: it’s been spit out by the authority of Church time and again, but for some reason keeps appearing on the spoon of stubborn theologians and bishops who keep trying to trick us into eating it by making cutesie airplane noises.

In an essay for Communio entitled “The Merciful Gift Of Indissolubility and the Question Of Pastoral Care For Civilly Divorced And Remarried Catholics”, Nicholas J. Healy, JR. traces the history of this argument, as well as four of the main times the Church has lovingly but resoundingly shut it down. I’ve listed my findings from the document below in order to provide some context for this issue that’s sure to arise once again at the October 2015 Synod on the Family.

The argument for allowing communion in certain circumstances to divorced and remarried Catholics can be traced back, at least in recent history, to the fourth session of the Second Vatican Council. Archbishop Elias Zoghby, the patriarchal vicar of the Melkites in Egypt, proposed that the Eastern practice of tolerating remarriage in certain cases should be considered. Even though Zobhby triggered a swift and negative response, dissenters still use this instance as an example in their favor.

Shut down by Pope Paul VI: "... the Church has no authority to change what is of divine law."

At the request of Pope Paul VI, all normal activities of the Council were suspended until the proposal was addressed. Cardinal Journet was asked by the Pope to respond to Zoghby, and citing Mk 10:2 and 1 Cor 7:10–11, he concluded that “the teaching of the Catholic Church on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage is the very teaching of the Lord Jesus that has been revealed to us and has always been safeguarded and proclaimed in the Church . . . the Church has no authority to change what is of divine law.”

Despite the Church’s response at the Second Vatican Council, the 1970s saw a barrage of publications from Catholic theologians and bishops advocating for a change in Church teaching, particularly in the United States and in Germany. In 1972, a study committee commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America issued an “Interim Pastoral Statement” on “The Problem of Second Marriages,” arguing that not only should the divorced and remarried be admitted back to the sacraments, but that the Church needed to rethink and redefine the very ideas of consummation and indissolubility. That same year in Germany, several prominent bishops and theologians such as Schnackenburg, Ratzinger*, Lehmann, and Böckle wrote volumes on the matter, arguing for leniency in certain circumstances similar to practices in the Orthodox Church (called oikonomia, which roughly translates to “stewardship” or “management of a household”).

*Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, officially retracted his support of communion for the divorced and remarried in a letter published in The Tablet in 1991, and has several times since voiced his support for Church teaching as expressed in “Familiaris Consortio”.

The Church holds a Synod on the Family in 1980, as divorces were on the rise throughout the world. The result of the 1980 Synod was Pope John Paul II’s 1981 apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” (roughly, “Of Family Partnership”), which contains beautiful reflections on the role of the family in God’s divine plan, and specifically includes a section about irregular situations. Addressing the situation of the divorced and civilly remarried, Pope John Paul II says the following:

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Shut down by Pope John Paul II: "...the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture,"

Three prominent German bishops, Oskar Saier, Walter Kasper, and Karl Lehmann, publish a letter in 1993 on pastoral care for the divorced and remarried, essentially saying that while what Pope John Paul II said in Familiaris Consortio is very nice and generally true, it can’t possibly apply to every difficult situation that arises. These bishops then proposed their own guide for divorced and remarried Catholics to determine their worthiness for the sacraments, as guided by a pastor. There were three conditions the German bishops laid out for the possibility of communion: the individuals should be repentant for the failure of the first marriage; the second civil marriage has to “prove itself over time as stable”; and the “commitments assumed in the second marriage have to be accepted.” Under these conditions, the bishops argued, civilly remarried people could in good conscience receive the Eucharist without the need to live continently.

Shut it down: In 1994, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaaffirms Catholic teaching

The CDF (Congregation n the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1994 issued an indirect response to the German bishops in the “Letter Concerning Communion”, which said church teaching “cannot be modified for difficult situations.” While it never mentioned the letter from the German bishops, it was clearly written in response to it. The Congregation’s letter cited passages from Scripture, Familiaris Consortio, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support Church teaching, and addressed false notions of conscience that would allow individuals to determine for themselves whether or not their first marriage was valid.

Literature published by various bishops and theologians still showed a tendency to stray from Pope John Paul II’s teaching in “Familiaris Consortio”, leading the Church to call for a Synod on the Eucharist in 2005, during which the issue was studied and addressed extensively.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a post-Synod apostolic exhortation called “Sacramentum Caritatis”, in which he confirmed Church doctrine and practice. He also called for a deeper theological understanding of the relationship between the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the and the sacrament of the Eucharist, and asked for better pastoral efforts in the area of marriage preparation for young people.

There are two important things to remember when considering this issue. The first is that the pain and separation felt by divorced and remarried Catholics is real, and the exhortation of the recent Popes to reach out to these people in the Church should be taken seriously by clergy and lay faithful alike. The second thing to remember is that while the pain of the divorced and remarried is a serious issue, it is not the only important and pressing issue in the Church at the moment, with thousands of Christians fleeing their homes or being slaughtered at the hands of Islamic extremists both in the Middle East and Africa.

Shut it down: the Holy Spirit will move, as He always has, to protect Catholic doctrine and unity

Still, because the issue continues to arise, the Synod Fathers will address it at the Synod on the Family later this year, and Pope Francis will write an apostolic exhortation on the matter some time after that. Let us continue to pray for all in Church leadership, and that those in authority have the courage to trust that the Holy Spirit will shut it down, as he has always done when erroneous proposals threaten Church doctrine and unity.

You have to understand. Francis could do just about anything and these folks will still defend, explain away, ignore. I honestly believe that if he said Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, they would explain it away all the while calling you “anti-Catholic”.

It has nothing to do with Francis. The Church survived the Medici Popes and it'll survive Francis. The question is whether or not you believe Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, Creator of all that was created, "misspoke" when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

If you believe Christ stated a fact rather than making a little mistake in how He phrased things then Francis is just dust in the wind.

As such, blabbering about Francis just adds to the general flow of anti-Catholic trash being spread and doesn't do a thing to help faithful Catholics. Were the same questions addressed among fellow Catholics that would be one thing.

Blabbering about Francis like he controls the ultimate destiny of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Christ Himself founded while standing in a crowd of anti-Catholic comic quoting hype artists is something entirely different and definitely aiding and abetting the anti-Catholic crew.

Actually, no. One can still believe in Christ’s words and recognize that Francis, by his words and actions, can be leading souls away from Christ. Francis is not a Medici. I’d rather have a Medici. Medicis may have sinned terribly, but they still preached the Catholic Faith rather than preaching Modernism.

Those here who seem to think Francis’ actions and words are just “dust in the wind” and have no real consequences for others, need to stop insinuating that the rest of us are “blabbering” and don’t believe in Christ’s words. If Francis” words adds to the anti-Catholic sentiment on this site, then one needs to consider that that is FRANCIS’ fault. Lay the blame where it belongs.

Besides, the non-Catholics here know full well that despite our views on Francis, we defend the Catholic Faith.

So the Medici permitting usury was right in line with Church Doctine and that's fine as long as they didn't make a big deal out of it in front of the little people? That's a new one on me and sufficient to indicate that the person arguing that the Medici were better than Francis is either dead from the neck up or deliberately ignorant of history.

Making things personal eh, Rash?

The fact that you don't see the difference between a Francis and a Medici is just part of the problem.

Personal? Boo Hoo.

"Cry Quack, and release the Ducks of War" . . .

You have no idea what I know or what I think about Francis or a lot of other things nor do you care to find out as you clearly feel any difference of opinion on approach and appropriate forums for such discussion is far beneath you.

have a lovely day

“Personal? Boo Hoo.”

Oh, I don’t care whether you get personal. It is against the forum rules though and it usually shows someone who doesn’t really have a good argument, so they resort to personal attacks.

“You have no idea what I know or what I think about Francis or a lot of other things nor do you care to find out as you clearly feel any difference of opinion on approach and appropriate forums for such discussion is far beneath you.”

Ah, so I don’t know what you know but you know what I know. Got it. But you are right about one thing: I don’t care what you think as I’ve already pointed out. Those of us who believe that it is necessary to point out the truth about Francis will do so regardless of what those from the peanut gallery consider “aiding and abetting the anti-Catholic crew”.

“aiding and abetting the anti-Catholic crew”.

I think this is important. If we shut down discussion/argument/opinions because of what someone else might think about the rest of the Faith then we've got big problems.

I didn't rattle your cage or in any way insinuate you were were in the same boat as the person I was talking with who constantly feeds the anti-Catholic fires around here but you jumped in and and very clearly came down on me personally but now you're talking about the rules?.

When in response I use an indirect reference regarding what someone must be like to believe a particular thing, though, that's personal.

Of course you don't care what anyone else thinks, that's exactly what I said in other terms.

There are proper venues for talking about things everyone knows will be twisted, distorted, and otherwise used against the Truth by those who are intent on attacking Catholicism.

Exactly why would a site flooded with comic quoting anti-Catholic trash posts be one of those?

That's not snark, by the by, I really don't see it unless there's a masked anti-Catholic goal, some schismatic goal, or some other agenda at work. Pouring gasoline on the flames ain't fighting the fire.

Marriage to a Jewish man is not in itself a barrier to your receiving Communion. Marriage to a Jewish man without a dispensation would be a barrier to reception of Communion. And of course, you would need to be free to marry—i.e., no previous valid marriage. But the fact that he is Jewish is not, in and of itself, a reason for you to be denied Communion.

The archdiocese of Boston granted Joe Kennedy an annulment because they are corrupt and dishonest. (You can tell they were dishonest in part because they refused to divulge whether an annulment had been granted. An annulement is a PUBLIC ACT OF THE CHURCH.)

Rome reversed the annulment because Joe’s wife (an Episcopalian) fought tooth and nail for years. Joe, of course, blithely married outside the Church.

Despite this sordid incident, the notion that “only Kennedys” get annulments—and that annulments are “sold”—is a slander.

It is willfully obnoxious repetitively to use the phrase “the Catholic denomination” when referring to the Catholic Church.

Would you consider a Catholic to be discussing issues in good faith, and with charity, if he INSISTED on referring to all Protestants, at all times, as “so-called ‘reformed’ schismatic heretics”?

Proper venues? You mean like Catholic Caucuses where certain posters question another’s Catholicity because they dare to criticize the pope? Yes I’m *sure* that would be the place where this sort of discussion would be supported and encouraged. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a similar discussion in Catholic Caucuses and they are not encouraged there.

And now you’re crying that I got personal with you? Really? I posted to ebbtide about a tendency I see in the forum in general of certain Catholics attitudes towards other Catholics. If you happen to fit the bill, then so be it.

I think I’m done here.

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.