SeparationI. This is the case when two parties in a marriage cease to have intercourse and cease to live together, but remain married, so that neither party is free to contract new marriage. Sometimes separation is necessary, but because of deleterious consequences it should be taken only for the gravest reasons.
2. People who intend only a separation may sometimes have to obtain a civil divorce to protect themselves from the other party, to gain support for and custody of children, or to effect a civilly valid distribution of property.
3 Divorce in such cases touches only on the civil effects of marriage and need not be intended to dissolve the marital bond.
4. In countries where civil divorce is not available, some legal settlement such as “legal separation” is sometimes necessary.
CCC 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. 17
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
Divorce
1. This is the dissolution of the marital bond itself, so that the partiers are free to contract new marriages with other persons.
2. Divorce, like the marriage contract that it tries to dissolve, is regulated by religious rules and civil laws.
3. Even the strongest proponents of divorce recognize it to be a serious social evil. They do not, as a rule, wish to undermine the stability of marriage nor to advocate divorce as a general remedy for marital unhappiness. They only advocate divorce for “hopeless cases in which the conjugal relationship no longer fulfills any of the purposes of marriage. In such cases, there is no more love between the couple,; the home is broken up; the children are not being reared by both parents together, or are suffering from the loveless and conflictive relationship between their parents; and often no more children are forthcoming. Under these circumstances divorce seems to be a reasonable remedy to a gravely dehumanizing situation. From the purely ethical point of view, it seems therefore that divorce is acceptable in certain exceptional circumstances.
4. Certain religions, such as the Catholic Christianity, do not admit divorce for their sacramentally married members who have consummated their marriage by the conjugal act. The justification for this attitude is of a religious character, such as, for example, the sacramental character of religious marriage as symbolizing the indissoluble unity of Christ and his Church (Eph 5:21- 33)., and the the power of divine grace to enable sacramentally married couple to achieve the purposes of marriage should they cooperate with this grace. This justification is therefore of the transcendent order and beyond the domain of nonreligious ethics. It would be acceptable and applicable only within the context of the religions which propose such a justification, and would not necessarily be acceptable or applicable to those who are not adherents of such religions.
5. Legalization of Divorce. In a society which is plural in terms of religious or political beliefs, the question of legalizing divorce becomes acute. In making an ethical discernment regarding the question of legalizing divorce, certain guidelines are useful:
a. Respect for dignity of every person requires that we do not make an legal imposition (whether for or against legal divorce) purely from the standpoint of a given religious viewpoint. This extremely important in religiously plural societies. Those religious and other social groups who wish to defend the indissolubility of marriage as essential to the good of persons and community should do so by forming the conscience of human persons, primarily of their members, but also of other members of society, but in a way that respects the moral autonomy and dignity of everyone.
b. The orienting value in deciding this question of whether or not to legalize divorce should be the common good. Operationally, this involves weighing the expected benefits and harm, for the members of society and for societal structures or institutions, of both legalization and nonlegalization of divorce.
c. In discussing the expected or actual consequences of the legalization or nonlegalization of divorce, there should be respect for truth and avoidance of manipulation of data in favor of one’s position. One argument against the legalization of divorce is the danger of debasement and degradation of marriage and the undue weakening of the family as an institution. This is an argument based on the common good. An argument against the legalization of divorce that would be inappropriate in a public national debate in a religiously plural society would be to simply argue that divorce is a sin against God and is prohibited by scripture and the magisterium. One should use arguments that are meaningful and relevant to all persons in society regardless of religion.
d. Divorce should not be seen as objectively morally neutral or much less as ideal. It should be seen as a sign of failure, as something lamentable, though perhaps sometimes necessary. What should be stressed is the ideal of a solid marital and family life. Many persons make the mistake that what is ethically decisive is that couples may have the possibility of divorce, while what is decisive ethically is that husband and wife strive to love each other fully and authentically.
e. Should the legalization of divorce be considered unavoidable after careful ethical discernment, the legislation regarding this question should aim to avoid as much as possible the deplorable consequences of divorce.
f. The question of divorce should not be used as a political weapon, in the sense of a an election promise aimed simply at gaining votes. The question is too serious to be considered as merely a political weapon.
Pastoral approach toward couples in irregular unions
1. There are persons who contracted marriages which are invalid in the eyes of the Church, or who for other reasons, live in a martially irregular situation. For example:
a. A divorced person marrying another civilly
b. A person marrying a divorced person civilly
c. Two divorced persons marrying one another
d. A couple married only civilly
e. An unmarried couple living-in together
f. A person separated from a spouse living-in with another
g. A person living in with a person who is separated from a spouse
2. As long as the couple is in the state of marital irregularity and they have not obtained judicial normalization of their situation, they are excluded from receiving the Eucharist This is not an excommunication. They may attend mass but they may not receive communion.
3. Such exclusion is considered reasonable if the normalization of their marital status is reasonably possible (such as in the cases of d and e above). We should not have an attitude of indifference or lack of seriousness to the irregularity of their marital situation.
4. If the couple does not have a serious reason against having a sacramental marriage, they should be urged to receive this sacrament in order to remove their irregularity.
5. The problem becomes acute, however, when such martially irregular situations are juridically insoluble because of the existence of a previous marriage. If the couple in such an irregular marital situation lament the tragedy of their irregularity, deeply repentant for their responsibilities in bringing it about, and desire to receive absolution and Eucharist, could they not be readmitted to the sacraments?
6. At present there is no other remedy bearing official approval of the Church except separation of the couple.
7. However, the couple would not be considered in a state of serious habitual sin if(1) they could not reasonably separate because of a serious reason, such as the upbringing of children, (2) and they assume the task of living in continence (not having sexual relations), (3) and have gone to the sacrament of penance. Because their irregular status is manifest while their life of continence is hidden, they may receive the Eucharist but in a way that avoids scandal (e.g. in a place they are not known). See handouts.
8. We recognize that the couple may not be perfect in their striving to live a life of continence and may fall occasionally into sexual activity. When such activity happens and they are repentant of it and they promise to try their best to be more continent, they can go to the sacrament of reconciliation in order to be absolved and thus be able to receive communion (while avoiding scandal). We apply here the law of gradualness.
9. What if the couple (in cases a, b, c, 1, g) could not reasonably separate because of a serious reason but they also could not promise to live in continence? What would be the pastoral approach in this case?
a. If the couple in the irregular marriage insists on receiving communion while not living in continence, warn them of the scandal they cause the community and the indifference to marriage they may foster in their children.
b. If they remain insistent on receiving communion, applying the principle of lesser evil, ask them to at least receive communion in a place where they are not known. Make it clear to them however that their reception of communion remain wrong and sinful according to church teaching.
Related pastoral cases:
A divorced and remarried couple or a civilly married couple or a couple living in asks you to bless their home.
1. Ask if the couple is intending to rectify their irregular situation. If not, urge them to do so, if it is possible.
2. Gently remind them that there is a danger of scandal if a church minister performs a public ceremony for them that might be misconstrued as Church acceptance of their irregular relationship. If they wish, they can perform the blessing themselves.
3. If in your judgment, there is a serious pastoral reason to accommodate their request, at least do it in private with the immediate family.
A divorced and remarried couple or a civilly married couple or a couple living in asks you to baptize or confirm their child.
I. Ask if the couple is intending to rectify their irregular situation. If not, urge them to do so, if it is possible.
2. Baptize or confirm the child. The child should not be denied sacraments because of the fault or sins of his or her parents.
A divorced and remarried couple or a civilly married couple or a couple living in seek to enroll their child in a catholic school.
1. Ask If the couple is intending to rectify their irregular situation. If not, urge them to do so, if it is possible.
2. Accept the child for enrollment. The child should not be denied baptism because of the fault or sins of his or her parents.
A divorced and remarried couple or a civilly married couple or a couple living in asks you to give them a blessing as a couple.
1. Ask if the couple is intending to rectify their irregular situation. If not, urge them to do so, if it is possible.
2. Gently remind them that there is a danger of scandal if a church minister performs a public ceremony for them that might be misconstrued as Church acceptance of their irregular relationship.
3. If in your judgment, there is a serious pastoral reason to accommodate their request, at least do it in private, integrating into your blessing the intention of marriage.
A divorced and remarried couple or a person who is only civilly married or is living in with another person asks to be a member of a parish ministry.
1. Ask if the couple is intending to rectify their irregular situation. If not, urge them to do so, if it is possible.
2. Gently remind them that there is a danger of scandal if they are engaged in a very visible parish ministry that might be misconstrued as Church acceptance of their irregular relationship (e.g., being Eucharistic minister, lector, head of pastoral council or committee, etc.
3. If in your judgment, there is a serious pastoral reason to accommodate their request, at least assign them to a less liturgically visible ministry. (e.g., finance, social action, membership in religious orgs., etc.). Apply compassion and prudence.
Non-reception of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried persons
Canon Law
Can. 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.
Familiaris Consortio
e) Divorced Percons Who Have Remarried
84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untinng efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.
Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithftul to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to iccure that they d consider themselves as scprtei from the Church. fo..ptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be enc.o!,jagcdp listen to the word of God. tQ attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, tcpcjsevere in prycr. to cojj4cjo works of charity and to communitycfts in favor ofjustice. to brin&p their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practic...ofpciiance and thus jplore.c.y.by day. G4 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 reaffirjhp.ciices’hich is based upcn Saçred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Comrnuniojdiyorcc. pcrsQn whgjave remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contraciictthat union of love between Christ andthe Church which is gnified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this there is ancher special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist. the faithful wQuld be led into error and confusion regarding the Cbjich teaching put the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament ZPenance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ. are sincerely ready to undertake a_way_of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. Ths means, in pctice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, tjcy “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is. by abstinence fromibe acts proper to married couples.”(180)
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of MatriQpy. to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery apinst her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”16 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAiTH
LETTER To THE BISHOPS OF THE CA THOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
Your Excellency
1. The International Year of the Family is a particularly important occasion to discover anew the many signs of the Church’s love and concern for the family(1) and, at the same time, to present once more the priceless riches of Christian marriage, which is the basis of the family.
2. In this context the difficulties and sufferings of those faithful in irregular marriage situations merit special attention(2). Pastors are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God’s mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and sharing in the life of the community of the Church(3).
3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church’s doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorized according to a judgment of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflection and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.
In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorization.
In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.
4. Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magistenum, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the deposihtmJidei.
With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5). the Church affirms that ajçjjn cannot be recognized as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are reartied civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receivcjloly Communion as long as this situation persists (6).
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion:
“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 his 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”(7).
The faithtl.il who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Compunion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ. are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example. for the children’s upbringing. a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is. by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consorilo. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.
6. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons(lO) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching( 11). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithfiul entrusted to their care of this doctrine.
This does not mean that the Church does not take to heart the situation of these faithful, who moreover are not excluded from ecciesial communion. She is concerned to accompany them pastorally and invite them to share in the life of the Church in the measure that is compatible with the dispositions of divine law, from which the Church has no power to dispense(12). On the other hand, it is necessary to instructthese faithful so that they do not think their participation in the life of the Church is reduced exclusively to the question of the reception of the Eucharist. The faithful are to be helped to deepen their understanding of the value of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, of spiritual communion(13), of prayer, of meditation on the Word of God, and of works of charity and justice(14).
7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions (15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
8. It is certainly true that a judgment about one’s own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecciesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one’s own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church’s mediation that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognize this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.
9. In inviting pastors to distinguish carefully the various situations of the divorced and remarried, the Exhortation Familiaris Consortio recalls the case of those who are subjectively certain in conscience that their previous marriage, irreparably broken, had never been valid (17). It must be discerned with certainty by means of the external forum established by the Church whether there is objectively such a nullity of marriage. The discipline of the Church, while it confirms the exclusive competence of ecclesiastical tribunals with respect to the examination of the validity of the marriage of Catholics, also offers new ways to demonstrate the nullity of a previous marriage, in order to exclude as far as possible every divergence between the truth verifiable in the judicial process and the objective truth known by a correct conscience( 18).
Adherence to the Church’s judgment and observance of the existing discipline concerning the obligation of canonical form necessary for the validity of the marriage of Catholics are what truly contribute to the spiritual welfare of the faithful concerned. The Church is in fact the Body of Christ and to live in ecciesial communion is to live in the Body of Christ and to nourish oneself with the Body of Christ. With the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist, communion with Christ the Head can never be separated from communion with his members, that is, with his Church. For this reason, the sacrament of our union with Christ is also the sacrament of the unity of the Church. Receiving Eucharistic Communion contrary to ecclesial communion is therefore in itself a contradiction. Sacramental communion with Christ includes and presupposes the observance, even if at times difficult, of the order of ecclesial communion, and it cannot be right and fruitful if a member of the faithful, wishing to approach Christ directly, does not respect this order.
10. In keeping with what has been said above, the desire expressed by the Synod of Bishops, adopted by the Holy Father John Paul II as his own and put into practice with dedication and with praiseworthy initiatives by bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful is yet to be fully realized, namely, with solicitous charity to do everything that can be done to strengthen in the love of Christ and the Church those faithful in irregular marriage situations. Only thus will it be possible for them fully to receive the message of Christian marriage and endure in faith the distress of their situation. In pastoral action one must do everything possible to ensure that this is understood not to be a matter of discrimination but only of absolute fidelity to the will of Christ who has restored and entrusted to us anew the indissolubility of marriage as a gift of the Creator. It will be necessary for pastors and the community of the faithful to suffer and to love in solidarity with the persons concerned so that they may recognize in their burden the sweet yoke and the light burden of Jesus(19). Their burden is not sweet and light in the sense of being small or insignificant, but becomes light because the Lord - and with himthe whole Church - shares it. It is the task of pastoral action, which has to be carried out with total dedication, to offer this help, founded in truth and in love together.
United with you in dedication to the collegial task of making the truth of Jesus Christ shine in the life and activity of the Church, I remain Yours devotedly in the Lord
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Alberto Bovone
JYtular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
During an audience granted to the cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II gave his approval to this letter, drawn up in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Given at Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 14 Sep/ember 1994, Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
(1) Cf. John Paul II, Letter to Families (2 February 1994), n. 3.
(2) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981) nn. 79-84: AAS 74 (1982) 180-186.
(3) Cf. ibid., n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 185 Letter to Families, n. 5; (‘atechism of the (‘atholic Church, n. 1651.
(4) Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humana? Vitce, n. 29: AAS 60 (1968) 501; John Paul 11, Apostolic
Exhortation Reconciliatio el Penitenlia, n. 34: AAS 77 (1985) 272, Encyclical Letter Veritatis
Splendor, n. 95: AAS 85 (1993) 1208.
(5) Mk 10:11-12: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
(6) Cf Catechism of the Catholic Ghurch, n. 1650; cf. also n. 1640 and the Council of Trent, sess. XXIV: DS 1797-1812.
(7) Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortlo, n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 185-186.
No comments:
Post a Comment