1) It is a matter of doctrine (derived directly from the New Testament) that we must not receive the Eucharist when we are in a state of grave sin:
1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." [1 Cor 11:27-29] Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion. [from the Catechism]
2) Having sex with someone you are not married to is a grave sin.
3) The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble. It lasts as long as both spouses are alive. From the catechism:
1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1).
1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.
This was clearly seen as a tough teaching the moment it came out of Jesus's mouth.
9
"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” [Matthew 19:9-10]
4) In the eyes of the Catholic Church, therefore, someone who gets married, divorces, and then goes through a civil or Protestant marriage ceremony with a second person is still considered to be married to the first spouse. An annulment process might find reasons to believe that first marriage was not valid, in which case a new (in the eyes of the Church, a first) marriage can be entered into. But first marriages are assumed valid until proven otherwise.
5) Thus, someone who has divorced and remarried is seen by the Church as being in an adulterous relationship.
6) If someone in that situation went to confession, confessed having sex with someone to whom he was not validly married, and had a firm intention of refraining from sex with his "second wife", he would be completely free to receive communion. (If he failed in his attention and went back to having sex with his second wife, he would be unable to receive communion again unless he again confessed with an intention of refraining.)
7) If a couple which is, in the eyes of the Church, not married, intends to continue living together in an active sexual relationship as if they were married, they are in the eyes of the Church in a state of grave sin.
8) If they are in a state of grave sin, they may not receive the Eucharist: see 1) above.
Given all of that, to say that a divorced and remarried couple (unless they have decided to live together celibately) may receive communion necessarily means that you disagree with one of the following teachings of the Church:
- That someone in grave sin may not receive the Eucharist
- That having sex outside of marriage is a grave sin
- That marriage is indissoluble
Thus, there is no room for "only a change in practice" here. Any change in practice would either imply a change in doctrine, or would mean advising people to do what Paul describes as itself being a grave sin: receiving the Eucharist unworthily.
14 comments:
This is why a Catholic who is divorced and remarried should not receive communion without first ceasing to have a sexual relationship with the second partner. But it does not give any reason in principle why the Church could not change its practice in this sense, namely telling them to give out communion to anyone who comes up, even when they are known to be living in a second marriage while the first spouse is still alive. The reason they could do that is because one could each time simply say, "For all I know they may have repented and stopped having sexual relations." It would not imply disagreeing with any of those doctrines, at least on the part of the priest.
The general practice, however, is already that it is the responsibility of the person receiving communion not to present himself if he knows himself to be in grave sin. Priests generally have no ability to know. Our priest, for instance, would have no way of know whether one of us had been married before, we only moved into town five years ago. And if he knows that a person was living in a state of sin, it's not as if he can call around to all the surrounding parishes and ask if the would be communicant has been there and confessed the sin in question.
Yes, in some very specific pastoral situation, a priest might actually refuse someone communion, but it's exceedingly rare. More common would be that if someone comes to a priest and says, "This is my situation. I'm living in a second marriage. I don't think it's wrong. Is it okay if I receive communion." The priest would reply, "No, you should not do that."
What's being argued for by the innovators such as Cardinal Kasper is not a policy that it is the responsibility of the communicant to not present himself for communion if he knows himself to be living in sin, but rather that there be some approved process for a person to discern, working with his priest, that even though he is living in an unblessed marriage, that he is somehow not really required to hold back from communion. This clearly amounts to saying that what the Church teaches is an adulterous relationship is somehow not sinful.
"But it does not give any reason in principle why the Church could not change its practice in this sense, namely telling them to give out communion to anyone who comes up, even when they are known to be living in a second marriage while the first spouse is still alive. The reason they could do that is because one could each time simply say, "For all I know they may have repented and stopped having sexual relations." It would not imply disagreeing with any of those doctrines, at least on the part of the priest."
But the priest (and the church as a whole) has to protect the Eucharist from being used in a sacrilegious way. Of course the priest can't know of any sins of anyone who comes up to communion, and this is why in general, it's the responsibility of the person who receives communion. But this particular situation is special because it's ongoing, and because it's public. If a couple lives together as a couple publicly, the priest has to assume just as everyone assumes that they are having sex unless he knows otherwise. So at some point, the priest will have to realize that this person who comes up to communion is a divorced-remarried, and then he is obligated to talk with them and say they are required to abstain from sexual life or not receive commmunion.
The first comment I think alludes to an even greater problem, or at least one that exacerbates the current conundrum, and it is that everyone now feels to compelled to present themselves for Communion. It's almost as though you feel like you have a giant spotlight on you if you continue to remain in your pew during Communion. (By the way, I don't think the percent of people remaining in the pews is much higher in the TLM, so it's not a TLM vs. Novus Ordo issue.) If I find the time I'll hopefully elaborate on a post at TAC. Long story short, if non-reception of Holy Communion was not such a rare thing nowadays, at least in the US, perhaps the civilly remarried would feel somehow less left out.
In my country (Hungary) I don't see this tendency of almost everyone presenting themselves for Communion, in fact all my life I heard encouragement that anyone not in the state of sin has no reason to refrain from receiving Communion. There are lots of people remaining in their pews. It is true that in a situation where a lot of the people in the Mass know each other it might be embarrassing not to go forward, or that I would potentially notice if someone among my friends repeatedly stayed behind(though, of course, one tries to concentrate on their own adoration rather than observing others). I don't think non-reception of Holy Communion ought to be encouraged, not even for the sake of the divorced-remarried - only that the necessity of being in the state of grace and of observing the fasting should perhaps be emphasized.
Agnes,
It is my understanding that this observation differs greatly by culture. Even here in the US if you went to the 11:30 Mass in English and then the 1:00 Spanish Mass (which will consist mainly of Mexican immigrants) at the same parish, the latter will have many fewer people present themselves for Communion.
http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/
Consider, though, what Pope Benedict wrote on this subject in 1972.
"Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage."
Perhaps this document is the basis for the idea of the internal forum in certain cases.
Consider, though, what Pope Benedict wrote on this subject in 1972....Perhaps this document is the basis for the idea of the internal forum in certain cases.
The history of this is already quite well known, though; although it's possible Kasper's proposal may have originally been independent, he has on multiple occasions cited the 1972 essay by Fr. Ratzinger, just as Ratzinger came to regard Familiaris consortio as a conclusive refutation of his original suggestion. It's unclear to me, though, what you take the point of this to be -- surely it doesn't establish that the proposal is not doctrinal, because Ratzinger's original essay explicitly bases the idea on claims about doctrine.
Many Catholics do not recognize that the EVIL wrought by SATAN and promoted by Cardinals Kasper and Marx (and supported by others) is "merciful" or "compassionate," or "shows they understand the difficulties facing people today." Agnes' post is a perfect example of this issue.
Agnes said, "I don't think non-reception of Holy Communion ought to be encouraged, not even for the sake of the divorced-remarried - only that the necessity of being in the state of grace and of observing the fasting should perhaps be emphasized."
Here's what Agnes, and many other people, do not get:
(1) A divorced person who remarries *without an annulment* and his/her new "spouse" are NOT married in the eyes of the Church *because* they are NOT married in the eyes of JESUS.
(2) If this couple does not refrain from having sex, they are NOT living in a state of grace. They are living in an objective (absolute) state of MORTAL SIN.
(3) ANYONE who is living in a state of MORTAL SIN commits SACRILEGE (makes the mortal sin WORSE) by receiving Holy Communion.
(4) There are three ways that the couple described in No. 1 can, with the help of the Church and Jesus, *restore themselves* to a state of grace:
(a) go to confession, separate permanently, and not have sex anymore,
OR
(b) go to confession and keep living together, but not have sex anymore.
(c) go to confession, obtain a decree of nullity from the Church, and then marry their second "spouse" in the Catholic Church
(5) NO ONE ELSE -- not the Pope, not a cardinal, not a bishop, not a priest -- NO ONE ELSE can "fix" this situation so that the couple can receive Holy Communion. They must do it themselves.
The ban on receiving Holy Communion is NOT a "punishment." It is (1) meant to WAKE UP people to the fact that they will go to HELL and (2) protect the Eucharist from profanation (meaning "grave disrepect" or "sacrilege").
CORRECTION: should read "is NOT "mercif," "compassionate," ...
Pat,
You misunderstood me. With my comment
"I don't think non-reception of Holy Communion ought to be encouraged, not even for the sake of the divorced-remarried - only that the necessity of being in the state of grace and of observing the fasting should perhaps be emphasized."
I was not referring to the divorced-remarried people who are in the state of sin and not in the state of grace, but Paul Zummo's previous comment:
"Long story short, if non-reception of Holy Communion was not such a rare thing nowadays, at least in the US, perhaps the civilly remarried would feel somehow less left out."
I meant that it is good if all who are NOT in the state of sin go forward and receive Communion, and not be discouraged for a mistaken sensibility for the feeling of those who actually cannot receive Communion. It should be on everyone's conscience to examine themselves and go to confession as necessary so as to be in the state of grace, and then receive Communion as often as they participate in the Mass.
I'm sorry if my comment was unclear.
Seeing these comments come through reminds me that I'd meant to respond back to Paul and Agnes's comments.
I agree with Agnes that we shouldn't be encouraging people who are in a state able to receive communion to not receive as often (I don't think that was what Paul was envisioning, but if someone were to put that forward, I'd disagree with the proposal) because clearly the grace of the sacrament are important and needed
At the same time, it does seem tome likely that simply putting more emphasis on existing Church teaching about what is and is not a sin, and what it means to be properly prepared for communion, would likely result in fewer people receiving. At least here in the US, there's a huge cultural weight behind the idea that "we're all good people" with sin being something like committing genocide that people in history books or on TV do. Things like sleeping with one's fiance or getting married outside the church are things that "nice people" still do and so working backwards from the fact that they're "nice people" a lot of people seem to conclude that these can't really be sins -- much less tings "everyone does" like lie or cheat or gossip behind people's backs.
Also, while this is a matter of discipline and so it was certainly legitimate to change the practice, the fact that at least in the US the fast before communion has now been reduced to one hour before receiving communion (which basically means that if you're not snacking in church you're fine) and even that isn't emphasized much I think serves to reinforce the idea that receiving the Eucharist is just something you do whenever you go to mass without having to think much about preparing for it during the rest of your life.
Emphasizing these things more would probably result in fewer people receiving and making the those married outside the church seem less singled out even if that wasn't the goal of the changes.
Darwin,
I agree with you completely. The "fasting" for maybe a quarter hour before you leave for church does seem ridiculous. My mother-in-law belongs to the Eastern Orthodox church and they observe the fasting from midnight before the Liturgy. They also have fasting periods with a complicate system of different degrees before a great number of feasts besides the Lenten period - and then, they abstain from any animal products like egg and dairy products as well - it's not like they can absolve the duty by choosing some fine treat of fish on some days. I do understand the idea behind simplifying the rules, but Catholics seem to have lost also the meaning of fasting in some way. The reverence for the Eucharist (its outer signs) have also diminished (people seem to avoid kneeling down whenever possible).
Just to clarify, no, I definitely do not think those in a state of grace should refrain from receiving Communion. It was a call to be stricter about not receiving when not in such a state.
Post a Comment