BREAKING: Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’ now receive communion? ‘Yes. Period.’
  • If they can re-commune with the Lord, can they do it nuptially as well, as in get remarried in church too?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,478
    In Germany adulters have been receiving the Blessed Sacrament for decades! That is assuming that the wild west / balloon celebrations are counted as valid Masses.

    They think the only way to get people to church is to accept everyone, even un-repetant mortal sinners. This is not going to work and the churches that are "throwing pearls to swine" are heading for extinction.
    Thanked by 1Steve Collins
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,324
    Compare the title of this discussion with the following paragraph cut and pasted from the article. See any difference?
    Kasper quotes Francis’ statement from an in-flight press conference on April 16 wherein he responded to the question if in some cases remarried divorced can receive Communion with the poignant words: “Yes. Period.” This answer is not found in Amoris Laetitia but ‘corresponds to the general ductus.’”

    It seems to me that even those espousing the traditional Church teaching re: holy communion for divorced and remarried Catholics can respond "Yes. Period." if the qualifier "if in some cases" is added.

  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,075
    Absolutely divorced and remarried can receive.....if they follow the Church's guidelines regarding remarriage. I am one of them... before I remarried I filed for a decree of nullity and received it. It some some months but I was free to remarry after that decree came through. My wife and I celebrated our marriage in a Catholic church.

    The problem becomes when those who do not follow the process go on and remarry. All of this discussion truly breaks my heart because I went through the process (gladly at that) and received the decree. Those who do not...well, what can I say. I rarely openly argue against something but AL truly breaks my heart.

    C'est la vie....
  • It seems to me that even those espousing the traditional Church teaching re: holy communion for divorced and remarried Catholics can respond "Yes. Period." if the qualifier "if in some cases" is added.


    Consider the following:

    Canon 1141: A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause except death.

    Canon 1134: From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which by its nature is perpetual and exclusive. Moreover, a special sacrament strengthens and, as it were, consecrates the spouses in a Christian marriage for the duties and dignity of their state.

    CCC 1614: In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

    CCC 1639: The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself. From their covenant arises "an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of society." The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love."

    CCC 1640: Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.


    It is clear, even from these brief excerpts, that a valid, consummated marriage can never be dissolved for any reason by the Church. A nullification, of course, means that the marriage never existed, and the Church considers that the two people were never actually married (although they may have been "married" in a civil sense). "In some cases" can only mean those times when the Church would grant a nullification, meaning that the couple was never actually married in the first place.

    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • So...what makes a valid marriage?

    CCC 1623: In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called "Crowning") is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant.

    CCC 1625: The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
    - not being under constraint;
    - not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

    Canon 1073: A diriment impediment renders a person unqualified to contract marriage validly.

    Canon 1083: §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

    §2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

    Canon 1084: §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

    §2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

    §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of canon 1098.

    Canon 1085: §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

    §2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.


    Canon 1086: §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

    §2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in canon 1125 and canon 1126 have been fulfilled.

    §3. If at the time the marriage was contracted one party was commonly held to have been baptized or the baptism was doubtful, the validity of the marriage must be presumed according to the norm of canon 1060 until it is proven with certainty that one party was baptized but the other was not.

    Canon 1087: Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

    Canon 1088: Those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.

    Canon 1089: No marriage can exist between a man and a woman who has been abducted or at least detained with a view of contracting marriage with her unless the woman chooses marriage of her own accord after she has been separated from the captor and established in a safe and free place.

    Canon 1090: §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.

    §2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

    Canon 1091: §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

    §2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

    §3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.

    §4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

    Canon 1092: Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.

    Canon 1093: The impediment of public propriety arises from an invalid marriage after the establishment of common life or from notorious or public concubinage. It nullifies marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and the blood relatives of the woman, and vice versa.

    Canon 1094: Those who are related in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line by a legal relationship arising from adoption cannot contract marriage together validly.


    These are the guidelines from the CCC and the specific diriment impediments that nullify a marriage. Whether or not they would be legally able to receive holy Communion would depend on their circumstances, but if they were validly married before they "divorced," then they would not be able to legally contract a new marriage, and if they attempted to do so, and attempted to consummate that marriage, they would be committing adultery, which is a mortal sin, and would render them ineligible to receive the Eucharist lawfully.

    Canon 915: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

    Canon 916: A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.


    It appears that, according to Canon Law, a person who was validly married in the Catholic Church cannot ever be divorced from their spouse. If a person in that case were to "divorce" and attempt to marry again, they would be committing adultery (since they were already validly married, which cannot be dissolved by anyone under any circumstances: only death), which is a mortal sin, and therefore would not be permitted to receive the Eucharist under the provisions of Canons 915 and 916 stated above. The "special cases" to which His Holiness is referring can only be circumstances whereby the Church has already granted, or would be able to legally grant, a nullification, which means that the couple was never actually married in the first place. In the case of a baptized individual, the Code of Canon law states that such nullification is required before a new marriage can be contracted, but can only be granted if the marriage is non-consummated:

    Canon 1142: For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.


    I would say, then, that a baptized Catholic in a valid, consummated marriage who "divorces" and contracts a new marriage would be committing adultery and not eligible to receive Holy Communion, per Canon Law.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Cardinal Kasper. Where's that Turkish assassin when you need him?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,229
    I would say, then, that a baptized Catholic in a valid, consummated marriage who "divorces" and contracts a new marriage would be committing adultery and not eligible to receive Holy Communion, per Canon Law.
    I believe this is entirely true.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,075
    Canon 1085 para. 2 is the heart of the question. Tribunals exists for that very reason.
  • I believe the heart of the problem is from the other direction, the necessity of receiving Holy Communion when attending Mass. The two are distinct actions. Even if you are in any sort of state of sin that precludes you from receiving, that does not relieve you of your duty to worship you God on Sundays. You don't get to skip Mass just because you cannot receive. This has become some sort of post Vatican II norm that all of the members of the congregation, as members of the "Body of Christ", express that unity by receiving the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ" together, no embarrassing exceptions. IMO this is from the Protestant influences on Vatican II, or at least on it's misguided implementation in many countries.
  • OraLabora
    Posts: 143
    @Steve Collins.

    No. it is Pius X who recommended frequent reception of the Eucharist. It predates Vatican II.

    +pax

    Ora
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,754
    And Pius X was implementing a decree of Trent that had waited centuries to be implemented....
  • I realize that, but that was different. That was encouraging reception by the congregation as opposed to ONLY the priest, at each and every Mass. It was as much an instruction to the priests to include the congregation as it was to the congregation to come up and receive.

    This is a much different ethos, one that each person who makes the effort to come to church DESERVES the reward of receiving like everyone else, and that reception is part and parcel of the entire celebration, and to NOT be allowed to participate at that time is just plain not Christian. And, conversely, if you are not going to be allowed to receive, and that somehow makes you ashamed, therefore you feel like you didn't get anything out of your effort.

    I also liken it to why, IMO, we don't bother to observe the Liturgy of the Hours publicly - because that is just simple praise and worship, without getting Jesus in Communion. So why bother to come to church for such a Liturgy?
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    At the time of Pope Pius X the fast was from midnight (even water breaks fast).
    Pope Pius XII reduced the fast to three hours (water and medicine allowed).
    Pope Paul VI reduced the fast to one hour (water and medicine allowed).

    For most this means eat breakfast and get in the car to drive to the church,
    no eating in the car on the way but definitely enjoying your water bottle.
    Such a sacrifice.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    I also liken it to why, IMO, we don't bother to observe the Liturgy of the Hours publicly - because that is just simple praise and worship, without getting Jesus in Communion. So why bother to come to church for such a Liturgy?


    Kind of seems that way, doesn't it? I often don't receive with the Latins on Sunday mornings for several reasons. I am there for multiple masses and when I do receive it is at one of the earlier more sparsely attended masses where I can leave the organ for a few minutes. There is almost a "row-by-row" mentality at work where anyone who doesn't receive can stand out a bit, at least in the congregation. I don't have that Latin mindset of having to receive communion every time I am there, but we Byzantines think like that. I am not privy to everyone's inner thoughts, but have noticed that we operate differently.
    Thanked by 2Salieri Vilyanor
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,754
    Of course, for Byzantine Catholics in the USA, attendance at Saturday Vespers, Sunday Matins *or* the Divine Liturgy satisfy the preceptual obligation for feasts and Sundays.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Vilyanor
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,075
    Stay on task...we are talking about marriage and divorce.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Speaking of which, I have a difficult time convincing people from other denominations that Catholics don't have divorce. They point out that our annulments are the same thing with a different name.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Except they're not, because you can't get one anytime you want, just because you want to. You can separate, but you are still technically married to your spouse until death. That is, if you have a valid and consummated marriage.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Yeah, but...I knew a couple married for years who got an annulment because hubby didn't grow psychologically. Sounds like a load of New-Age BS to me. She immediately married the other guy who was the real cause of the annulment. There are abuses.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • tsoapm
    Posts: 79
    I believe psychological incapacity to undertake marriage is a legitimate ground for nullity: not hard to abuse, of course.
  • There are abuses.


    This is indicative of a larger problem within the Church.

    She immediately married the other guy who was the real cause of the annulment.


    This is indicative of a larger problem in society.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    I know, CK. I suspect marriage tribunals are not consistent from diocese to diocese. Are they working with any kind of uniform standards? Who knows.

    I heard a priest preach that John the Baptist would not be put to death today. He would say to Herod, "let's go talk to the marriage tribunal and work this out."
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,478
    I heard a priest preach that John the Baptist would not be put to death today. He would say to Herod, "let's go talk to the marriage tribunal and work this out."


    What utter nonsense, John the Baptist would preach the truth, you can't steal another man's wife! In this day and age he may not end up being beheaded, thanks to our legal systems reserving capital punishment to the most serious crimes.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    I think the priest was indicating how loose and flimsy the reasons are for annulments in some places. I suspect it varies from diocese to diocese.