DIVORCED PEOPLE ARE NOT “OUTSIDE” THE CHURCH
Vatican City, 3 June 2012 (VIS) – Yesterday evening, almost half a million people attended the “Celebration of Witnesses” at Bresso Park in Milan, Italy, one of events of the seventh World Meeting of Families. The Holy Father arrived at 8.30 p.m. to participate in the celebration during which he answered questions put to him by various families on subjects which included the economic crisis, the position of divorced people in the Church and the indissolubility of Marriage. Benedict XVI also recalled his own infancy and family life.
An engaged couple from Madagascar who are studying at university in Italy spoke of the anxiety they felt when faced with the “forever” of Marriage. The Pope explained that falling in love, being an emotion, is not eternal. “The emotion of love must be purified”, he said, “it must undertake a journey of discernment in which the mind and the will also come into play. … In the rite of Marriage the Church does not ask whether you are in love but whether you want, whether you are resolved. In other words, falling in love must become true love; it must involve the will and the mind in a journey (which is the period of engagement) of purification, of greater profundity so that it is truly all of man, with all his capacities, with the discernment of reason and the force of will, who says: ‘Yes, this is my life'”. The Holy Father also mentioned other important factors such as communion of life with others, with friends, the Church, the faith and God Himself.
A Brazilian family raised the issue of divorced couples who have remarried and cannot avail themselves of the Sacraments. Benedict XVI affirmed that “this is one of the the great causes of suffering for the Church today, and we do not have simple solutions. … Naturally, one very important factor is prevention. This means ensuring that, from the beginning, the act of falling love is transformed in a more profound and mature decision. Another factor is that of accompanying people during marriage, to ensure that families are never alone but find authentic company on their journey. We must tell people in this situation that the Church loves them, but they must see and feel this love”. Parishes and other Catholic communities “must do everything possible so that such people feel loved and accepted, that they are not ‘outsiders’ even if they cannot receive absolution and the Eucharist. They must see that they too live fully within the Church. … The Eucharist is real and shared if people truly enter into communion with the Body of Christ. Even without the ‘corporeal’ assumption of the Sacrament, we can be spiritually united to Christ”. It is important for divorced couples “to have the chance to live a life of faith, … to see that their suffering is a gift for the Church, because they also help others to defend the stability of love, of Marriage; … theirs is a suffering in the community of the Church for the great values of our faith”.
A Greek family asked the Pope what families affected by the economic crisis can do not to lose hope. “Words are insufficient”, the Holy Father replied. “We should do something tangible and we all suffer because we are unable to do so. First let us speak of politics. I believe that all parties should show an increased sense of responsibility, that they should not make promises they cannot keep, that they should not seek votes only for themselves but show responsibility for the common good of everyone, in the awareness that politics is also a human and moral responsibility before God and man”. Moreover, each of must do everything we can “with a great sense of responsibility and in the knowledge that sacrifices are necessary if we are to prevail”. The Holy Father also suggested that families help one another, and that parishes and cities do likewise, supporting one another with material assistance and never forgetting to pray.
A seven year old girl from Vietnam asked the Pope to say something about his own family and infancy. Benedict XVI recalled the essential importance Sunday had had for his family. “Sunday began on Saturday afternoon when my father would tell us the Sunday readings. … Thus we entered into the liturgy in an atmosphere of joy. The next day we would go to Mass. I lived near Salzburg so there was always music – Mozart, Schubert, Haydn – and when the ‘Kyrie’ began it was as if the sky itself had opened. … We were of one heart and soul, with many shared experiences even through difficult times because there was the war and before that the dictatorship, then poverty. But the reciprocal love that existed between us, the joy in simple things was so strong that we could bear and overcome these things. …Thus we grew up in the certainty that it is good to be human, because we could see the goodness of God reflected in parents and siblings. … In this context of trust, joy and love we were happy and I think that heaven must be similar to my youth. In this sense I hope ‘to go home’ when I go ‘to the other part of the world'”.
Catholicism Pure & Simple 
how an a divorced and ‘re-married’ person who is living in sin and o unable to receive the sacraments ‘spiritually united to Christ’? This is a contradiction in terms. If you are living in sin, if you are committing adultery then you are not in the state of sanctifying grace, you are not united to Christ, you are going to go to hell and are his enemy.
If you are divorced and ‘re-married’ but not committing adultery with the person you are living with and are basically living as brother and sister, then you can go to the sacraments.
Why is the Holy Father not teaching the faith?!!! God help us!
LikeLike
There are individual situations that could be looked at. A mother of 3 left her husband who was physically and verbally abusive as well as alcoholic, unwilling to seek treatment for his disease, unwilling to work and support his family.Eventually the woman divorced and remarried for the greater good of her children, giving them a “real” father and a much better chance in life.If someone like this gets turned away at the Roman Catholic altar rail (as was the case), this family might find a welcoming church home in the Anglican communion.
LikeLike
Ignatius, Very harsh and unforgiving words. The Jesus I know and Love surely would not send someone to hell as you suggest in your comment.Divorced people who may have remarried are not destned to hell and not the enermy of God. God loves them too… Blessings….
LikeLike
how an a divorced and ‘re-married’ person who is living in sin and unable to receive the sacraments ‘spiritually united to Christ’? This is a contradiction in terms.
The inability to receive the sacraments is not the same thing as being separated from the mystic Body of Christ — a lesson that I learned at length during my years first as an unbaptised convert then as a catechumen prior to my baptism and first communion.
The sacraments are a manifestation in this world of Graces from God, and the hardline interpretation that you’re proposing is almost the opposite of that truth.
Finally, these are always difficult individual situations with difficult individual circumstances, and not every Catholic can have their failed marriage annulled for causes of whichever violation of the sacrament by their spouse, nor even contemplate that such an annullment is even possible — nor indeed actually even *request* such an annullment prior to the second marriage that forbids them from receiving the Sacraments.
LikeLike
I have a relative whose wife left him for another man, in defiance of their wedding vows. She turned violently against Christianity and, many years later, refused to cooperate in any annulment process when my relative wished to join the Catholic Church. The result was that for some years he found himself unable to receive the Eucharist, which was a great grief to him. His parish priests and the local diocesan official were both very sympathetic to his cause, but in the absence of any cooperation from his ex-wife (who by then was on her fourth husband), there was nothing they could do. This seemed, and seems to me intolerably harsh. It causes him real suffering, and it is surely a mark of his commitment that despite it he has still joined the Catholic Church. But it seems as though there is nothing that can be done for him – the diocesan official has been so helpful, but he is bound by the rules and that seems to be that.
LikeLike
Vile behaviour from his ex-wife, especially !!!
Can’t he lodge a request for help from the Holy See itself ?
LikeLike
I should, of course, have said that the problem comes from the fact that nearly twenty years later he remarried (though not in church) a nice woman (who had never been married, and who happens to be my step-sister). The diocese has said they can do no more, and he, good man that he is, says he will simply abide by the decision. The problem appears to be that his ex will do nothing which would actually help him. She could get things moving very easily if she simply filled in the paperwork she has been sent, but she takes a vindictive pleasure in not doing so. Still, his obedience is an example to me – though not one I fear I could follow,
LikeLike
One may still receive an annulment even if one spouse refuses to cooperate…meaning they do not respond at all to the paperwork they receive.
LikeLike
So I understood, but the diocese here seems pretty clear that there is nothing they can do. This is possibly because the ex wife threatens to write to them if they proceed. It seems very sad to me – but my relative is a model of patience and obedience.
LikeLike
The problem is that just because someone is divorced and remarried does not necessarily indicate that they are living in sin. At least not in the way meant above. Was the first marriage a true sacramental marriage? Especially in the cases of converts it is quite possible that it was not. The Holy Father has even indicated that the Church might reconsider it’s long standing assumption that a marriage contracted outside the Church by non-Catholic individuals should receive the assumption of validity absent other factors. For those who have always been inside the Church the situation might be different, although many are not aware that a marriage contracted apart from the Church, for instance by a Catholic without the permission of his Ordinary, and in a ceremony outside the Church, is probably not valid.
More need to actually attempt to receive an annulment rather than assume it will not be given, or is in some way too expensive, too intrusive or too difficult. Many would be surprised at how easy it is to set things aright. Of course it is a sin to cause scandal, which is what can happen if people who are not validly sacramentally married are living as man-and-wife.
Jessica, every Catholic has the right to petition Rome if the local diocese refuses to help in a case like this. They cannot say “There is nothing we can do.” They must process the request, and if they do not think that there is enough evidence that the marriage was invalid they may, of course, deny the petition. However if they do it is suppose to be automatically appealed to Rome for confirmation of the denial. If the diocese will not help him he needs to find a canon lawyer who will. The faithful have rights under canon law.
LikeLike
Thank Terry. His marriage was contracted when he was 21, as his bride was. Within five years she’s managed to be unfaithful and then cleared off altogether, leaving him devastated. But he did contract a sacramental marriage in the Anglican church, and he never wanted a divorce; she eventually divorced him after whatever the period of time is which the law allows. None of this mattered until he married again ten years ago. The Anglicans were happy to remarry him, but he refused to have another church wedding and had a blessing instead. It was only when he converted that this became a problem. His diocesan officials couldn’t have been more helpful, but they are quite clear that there’s nothing to be done. The interesting thing is that my relative accepts all of this in obedience – it is me who gets heated on his behalf. It shouldn’t be this difficult for a sincere Christian to receive the Eurcharist. At no point did he commit a sin, and to my mind he’s being denied Christ’s body unjustly – but then, of course, I am not a Catholic and don’t understand – as he tells me!
LikeLike
Jessica, the ability that he has to petition the Holy See himself is not “nothing to be done” about it — he really *does* have that possibility, in the face of the diocese claiming to be unable to assist him.
LikeLike
Thank you Jabba, I have mentioned it to him.
LikeLike
Hi everyone,
I had a couple of thoughts as I read the comments. First, divorced and remarried Catholics are still Catholics. Ignatius is both right in a way, and wrong. Right, in that by getting divorced and remarried, this is considered adultery by the Church.
This is because And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.. (Mark 10:11-12). Those are the words of Christ.
Hence, they would be in a state of mortal sin. Adultery is a mortal sin. Those who are aware that they have mortal sin on their soul are required to abstain from the Eucharist, because receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege (and another mortal sin).
This does not mean, however, that they are outside the Church! They would still be required to attend Mass, or contract additional mortal sin (missing Mass is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church). The Church still has power to require this.
There is the ability of the Church to give an annulment. An annulment is a recognition by the Church that the marriage was never valid to begin with. And example would be a marriage that was never consummated (it happens). Another example would be that either husband or wife had had themselves sterilized, and hence unable to have children, keeping this from their spouse.
The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.
If the process works as it should, it only will recognize the marriage as invalid if the marriage was truly invalid. The Church does NOT have the power to make a valid marriage null and void. Hence She should be very careful in this regard. In the United States, we give about 80% of the world’s annulments with only 5% of the world’s Catholic population. In other words, something is wrong. For the person who received the annulment, however, if the Church annulled a valid marriage, with the person who sought it 100% honest in providing information about the marriage, they would not commit sin in remarrying. The improper annulment would not be their fault, but rather that of the marriage tribunal. The person who sought the annulment should be able to trust the tribunal.
With all that said, the Catholic Church does recognize, however, that this is a messed up world, and people mess up. A man who fell away from the Church in his teens or twenties, got married, got divorced, and got remarried, may be living in an invalid marriage. He would be in a state of sin. But let’s say he comes back to the faith in his 30’s, 40’s or later. The Church recognizes that this happens. It may cause him huge trouble to tell his wife if he states “We will only live as brother and sister”, causing scandal with his kids (who hopefully come with him back into the Church), etc.
For these situations, what the man should do is assist at Mass (thus not contracting additional mortal sin), refrain from the Eucharist (thus avoiding sacrilege) and make a spiritual communion instead, and trust in the mercy of Our Lord. However, he must not state that the Church’s teaching is wrong, because he would cause scandal and give the impression to his children and others that divorcing and remarrying is a-okay.
It is not. And if he led other people down that path, it would cause others to fall into mortal sin.
I have a friend in this situation. He goes to Mass. He prays. He does not receive the Eucharist. He recognizes the whole situation. And He trusts in the will of God. I wish he hadn’t gotten into this situation, but decades earlier was young and ignorant, etc. But he tries to fulfill his obligations to God as best he can.
Hope this helps. God Bless.
LikeLike
All that I see, but two things strike me. Someone who was not a Catholic when he married and did not marry in a Catholic Church is still caught by this. I am also concerned with what seems to me to be an accounting mentality – ‘contracting additional mortal sin’. This, in a way, is what separates me still from Catholicism. The Christ we encounter in the NT does not only not talk or act in this way, He seems rather angry with those who do, and who add burdens onto the people. This, for me, as someone seriously enquiring, is what puts a gap between me and the Church. The Orthodox proceed in a different manner, and this, to me, seems left over from the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. The God I encounter counted no cost to the sacrifice He made to me.
LikeLike
@ Jessica
I think it helps to realize that the Church is well aware that God’s plans and mercy are not entirely captured by the ‘rules’, any more than God’s nature is captured by the words of theology: both struggle to articulate the ineffable. Your relative’s struggles with the rules in this case may bring him much closer to God than those of us who have a much easier time of it.
I suppose I contrast the Church’s treatment of this sort of case with that of my former Anglicanism where (usually) nothing was said or done beyond affirmation of whatever happened to be the case. Certainly a much comfier experience all round, but not necessarily one that contributed more to our sanctification.
In general, I’ve found Catholicism looks much ‘nastier’ on the outside than it is in reality. Unlike Anglicanism (where a lot of judgment and Phariseeism exist within at an unarticulated level), you get all the rules articulated up front in the Catholic Church, but with a great reservoir of mercy and love even (especially?) among those who are orthodox and try to stick by them. (Humphrey Carpenter’s biography of Runcie (I think) has the revealing (and I find rather chilling) story of the entrant to an Anglican theological college who was told: ‘There are no rules here, but this is the way we do things.’)
LikeLike
There is the ability of the Church to give an annulment. An annulment is a recognition by the Church that the marriage was never valid to begin with. And example would be a marriage that was never consummated (it happens). Another example would be that either husband or wife had had themselves sterilized, and hence unable to have children, keeping this from their spouse.
Yes — BUT :
The Sacrament is provided in God by each spouse to the other, NOT by the priest or the Church to the couple.
Therefore, it can be annulled if it can be shown that it was not validly provided, including for reasons that one of the spouses did not licitly provide the Sacrament.
Or, that by deliberate acts of apostasy or blasphemy, that one of the spouses has retroactively invalidated their ability to participate in sacramental life.
And so on and so forth.
LikeLike
I am also concerned with what seems to me to be an accounting mentality – ‘contracting additional mortal sin’.
This sort of mediaeval bean counting is associated with the blasphemous sale of indulgences, and has nothing to do with the Church from Renaissance and Counter-Reformation onwards, nor with the pre-mediaeval nor early mediaeval Church to start with….
LikeLike
.
Evely Waugh had his first marriage “anulled” after his wife,(also named Evelyn(!) ran off with another man.
How did Waugh achieve this? Two ways: Money and influence.
With those, all things are possible.
LikeLike
@ Jessica
You have made many really good interesting comments on this blog since you arrived, showing knowledge, perception and sensitivity. I hope you manage to sort out and overcome the difficulties you still have that keep you from joining the Catholic Church :-).
——–
Although it might be true that the phrase ‘contracting additional mortal sin’ might sound rather legalistic language (or like ‘bean counting’ as Jabba puts it)…… yet all averagecatholic seems to be affirming is that, having committed one mistake or sin, there is no reason to give up, turn away from God, and therefore commit further sins; in this case mentioned, breaking the commandment to “Keep holy the Lord’s day”.
“The God I encounter counted no cost to the sacrifice He made to me.”
That is true, and that is why our love and gratitude in return should make us want to turn away from sin. Much is forgiven those “who love much”. Jesus did not condemn the woman brought before Him who had been caught in “flagrant adultery”, but before He sent her on her way He warned her “to sin no more”. Only sincere repentance and a firm purpose of amendment is required from the sinner for him to be shown the greatness of God’s unlimited Mercy. It is NOT however a ticket for anyone to willingly and knowingly commit any sin in the hope of obtaining pardon, come what may!!
LikeLike
@ Toad
I don’t pretend to be an expert on annulments – and I know nothing about the particular case of Evelyn Waugh – but having money or influence is not a prerequisite in obtaining an annulment. If you have any doubt about this, just ask any priest who has any dealings with annulments. (With marriage tribunals, being made up of fallible human beings of course, there will always be the possibility of errors being made occasionally….. either in favour or against the petition for an annulment. Although it appears the Church does everything possible to avoid them.)
I’m also pretty sure that annulments are given by marriage tribunals for more causes than just those mentioned in the above comments. Coercion to get married, immaturity of one or both of the spouses, and a failure to fulfill the promises a non-Catholic has to make when marrying a Catholic can also be some of the other causes for the marriage to be considered null and void.
LikeLike
Evely Waugh had his first marriage “anulled” after his wife,(also named Evelyn(!) ran off with another man.
How did Waugh achieve this? Two ways: Money and influence.
With those, all things are possible.
Nothing whatsoever to do with money, and as for influence it’s religiously obtained, not politically.
The only person I’ve met who had her former marriage annulled, then remarried, is an ordinary Portuguese lady and a working mother.
Where’s the “money and influence” there, toad ?
LikeLike
.
Kathleen says..“…immaturity of one or both of the spouses,” …Well, that would let just about anybody off their unhappy marriage. And why not? Toad’s still immature at 71.
Jabba says…“..and as for influence it’s religiously obtained, not politically.”..which is exactly the point Toad is making.
He-Evelyn, as a rich and famous Catholic, was able to use his religious influence to get his earlier marriage anulled to She-Evelyn.
Took him ages, and cost plenty, but he did it.
Waugh may well have used the “immaturity” ploy as well. Can’t remember offhand. I’ll look it up.
(Possibly, “Of course my wife was immature – she ran off with somebody else, didn’t she? How immature can you get?”)
Hope this doesn’t give the impression that I’m against anullment – far from it. Just like to see it made much easier and cheaper, is all.
LikeLike
I don’t think Toad is ‘immature‘. He might be a mischief-maker, full of doubts and variability, but that’s not the same thing ;-). Someone who is genuinely immature is incapable of making the proper lifelong compromise needed for marriage. (Everyone knows how teenagers fall in and out of love with amazing ease!)
Immaturity is certainly difficult to prove, and probably (though I’m not sure about this) it would not apply to anyone older. Anyway, I do know that Catholic marriage tribunals go into the whole business in a very committed professional way.
“Just like to see it made much easier and cheaper...”
It cannot be made ‘easier‘ than it is, or that would be a mockery of the sacrament.
It could hardly be made ‘cheaper‘. The whole procedure naturally incurs quite high costs, and even so, the Church makes it practically free for those who have no means of paying for it themselves.
(Edit: Please read ‘commitment‘ for the word ‘compromise‘ in the first paragraph above!.)
LikeLike
.
“Someone who is genuinely immature is incapable of making the proper lifelong compromise needed for marriage. (Everyone knows how teenagers fall in and out of love with amazing ease!)”
Kathleen and Toad seem to be in agreement here. If her defintion of immaturity is valid, and it’s as good as any, then one only has to look at the figures for divorce to see how many immature people there are about.
Anullments all round, for immature Catholics!
And when it comes to teenagers falling in and out of love “with amazing ease”, Toad has seen many men and women in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s who could give them a game, and five points start.(After 60, the brakes generally go on, a bit. 20’s goes without saying.)
“Immaturity is certainly difficult to prove, “
It would certainly be instructive and enlightening to hear Kathleen’s notion of a “proof” for it.
Equally interesting to hear of any “proof” of maturity.
Not responding to Toad on blogs, maybe?
LikeLike
Jabba says…“..and as for influence it’s religiously obtained, not politically.”..which is exactly the point Toad is making.
No, toad, it isn’t.
Your point was that annullments are only obtainable by a privileged few, whereas in fact they may be sought by the rich and the poor alike, regardless of any status.
What I meant by “religious influence” is that if you are lapsed from the Church or etc, then it’s obviously going to negatively affect your chances of obtaining an annullment, by virtue of receiving no support from pries, parish, bishop, etc.
He-Evelyn, as a rich and famous Catholic, was able to use his religious influence to get his earlier marriage anulled to She-Evelyn.
Took him ages, and cost plenty, but he did it.
The time and cost factors vary tremendously from diocese to diocese, but those financially unable to pay such costs are not typically required to do so.
So you see, your views on the matter of wealth and influence in relation to the annullment of marriages appear to be quite fundamentally inaccurate.
LikeLike
.
Jabba, my belief is that, had Waugh not been rich, famous and well-connected with the Catholic hierachy – he would not – and could not – have obtained his anullment on what were very suspect and dubious grounds, by any standards.
His original marriage was quite regular and lawful, in an Anglican church, and his married life was also normal enough, and he was devasted when She-Evelyn ran off. The reason for the anullment was so that, now a Catholic he could marry his second wife in a Catholic church.
Fine by me. But.
I think he got privileged treatment.
I think some “connected” people do. I know of another case, involving a friend of mine, where something very similar happened.
But I can’t go further into that. For reasons of privacy.
LikeLike
Jabba, my belief is that, had Waugh not been rich, famous and well-connected with the Catholic hierachy – he would not – and could not – have obtained his anullment on what were very suspect and dubious grounds, by any standards.
Judge not, lest ye be judged … springs spontaneously to mind here, toad.
You’re quite wrong — he may have quite honestly and regularly married her ; but if she falsely and irregularly married him, those are grounds for annullment — “wealth” and “fame” are NOT grounds for annullment — and the wealthy and “influential” can have their requests for annullment turned down if they appear to be groundless.
Her decision to run off with another man constitutes clear prima facie grounds on which to base a request for annullment of marriage.
LikeLike
the wealthy and “influential” can have their requests for annullment turned down if they appear to be groundless
(A local example of this, for your edification — Princess Caroline of Monaco requested, and was refused, annullment of her second marriage — and after she remarried, she was unable to partake of Holy Communion, until after her ex-husband died (horribly, and tragically) in a speed boat accident. Wealth and “influence” do not provide easy annullments of marriage — as Henry VIII discovered, to his great chagrin)
LikeLike
Kathleen – utterly with you in saying that our being forgiven is no free pass to commit sin – that sort of thinking is a terrible heresy. It is His love which calls forth our love, and it is that love which is, for me, the foundation of my faith. It is because of His love for me that I feel so keenly when I fall short; I don’t think fear would do it for me! Thanks for your encouragement.
LikeLike
.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged … springs spontaneously to mind here, toad.” …intones Jabba. What was it you said about Sister Margaret Farley the other day?
I think several readers will be surprised and delighted to hear that their spouse running off with someone else is clear grounds for an anullment. I certainly was.
LikeLike
“Judge not, lest ye be judged … springs spontaneously to mind here, toad.” …intones Jabba.
Intoning, and the pointing of a finger, will always be easier when not positioned before a mirror.
LikeLike
.
“Intoning, and the pointing of a finger, will always be easier when not positioned before a mirror.”
Cripes, Jab! What’s that? The Curse of the Cat people? Anyway, wouldn’t it be more difficult when not positioned in front of a mirror?
Oh, never mind.
I’ll go and try it out.
Anyway…Jabba – possibly facing the mirror, possibly not – says, “Her decision to run off with another man constitutes clear prima facie grounds on which to base a request for annullment of marriage.”
In fact, the Evelyns opted for the, “We didn’t take the idea of marriage seriously.” gambit. He-Evelyn being quoted by a witness as having said, “We’ll give it a try.” The angle worked.
I quote from Selina Hastings’ biog of Waugh: “..the Westminster tribunal expressed serious reservations,reservations which were however, dismissed by the Rota, whose Curia had no hesitation in granting a decree of nullity…”
Let us hope any youngsters contemplating marriage are taking notes.
And, anyway, that’s surely enough anullment, anyway? Toad, staring and pointing into the looking-glass, is beginning to bore himself.
LikeLike