Pope Benedict on Divorced and Remarried

Blogged by James Preece on 14th June 2012

Speaking at the World Meeting of Families in Milan...

MANOEL ANGELO: Some of these remarried couples would like to be reconciled with the Church, but when they see that they are refused the sacraments they are greatly discouraged. They feel excluded, marked by a judgement against which no appeal is possible. These sufferings cause deep hurt to those involved. Their wounds also afflict the world and they become our wounds, the wounds of the whole human race. Holy Father we know that the Church cares deeply about these situations and these people. What can we say to them and what signs of hope can we offer them?

THE HOLY FATHER: Dear friends, thank you for your very important work as family psychotherapists. Thank you for all that you do to help these suffering people. Indeed the problem of divorced and remarried persons is one of the great sufferings of today’s Church. And we do not have simple solutions. Their suffering is great and yet we can only help parishes and individuals to assist these people to bear the pain of divorce. I would say, obviously, that prevention is very important, so that those who fall in love are helped from the very beginning to make a deep and mature commitment. Then accompaniment during married life is needed, so that families are never left on their own but are truly accompanied on their journey. As regards these people - as you have said - the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church. Perhaps, even if it is not possible to receive absolution in Confession, they can nevertheless have ongoing contact with a priest, with a spiritual guide. This is very important, so that they see that they are accompanied and guided. Then it is also very important that they truly realize they are participating in the Eucharist if they enter into a real communion with the Body of Christ. Even without “corporal” reception of the sacrament, they can be spiritually united to Christ in his Body. Bringing them to understand this is important: so that they find a way to live the life of faith based upon the Word of God and the communion of the Church, and that they come to see their suffering as a gift to the Church, because it helps others by defending the stability of love and marriage. They need to realize that this suffering is not just a physical or psychological pain, but something that is experienced within the Church community for the sake of the great values of our faith. I am convinced that their suffering, if truly accepted from within, is a gift to the Church. They need to know this, to realize that this is their way of serving the Church, that they are in the heart of the Church. Thank you for your commitment.

[link]

Rate this blogentry: + -

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Catholic Mother said...

As I grew up I remember hearing that the Church was unkind to not permit divorce. This was before the issue affected me at close quarters. When one spouse moves onto pastures new, the other is left to approach mid-life and older years alone (if they remain faithful to their marriage vows) and the children carry the burden in many ways. Sometimes the children's sense of responsibility is entirely misplaced in that they feel responsible for the break-up. In later years, lone parents who are neither elderly nor frail may develop excessive 'need' of their children.

I have come to realise that 'compassion' towards one individual cannot be at the cost of others who are not responsible for the situation. The loss of contact can affect the whole extended family.

The new spouse has often been around before the marriage break-up, but there seems to be an expectation that they will receive full approval, affection and rights within the family circle.

Scout said...

I understand what you are talking about, Catholic Mother. Relationship break-ups are amongst the worst things people can experience. My own parents went through a very painful split when I was 14 and my brother was 12. It was difficult for both of us, and the bitterness between my parents has caused tensions ever since. Both have subsequently remarried. Although I naturally regret the acrimony and the divorce, I am glad that they've been able to move on and build new lives apart

Situations like this are more difficult for Catholics because of the religious stigma against divorce and remarriage. Nobody thinks relationship break-ups are good. They are horrible - often about as horrible as you can get. I don't know of anybody who got married with the intention of getting divorced later. But when these tragedies happen, people need to deal with them and be allowed to rebuild their lives. Shouldn't the Catholic Church be more helpful and compassionate in this regard?

agellius said...

I find this baffling. How can someone be unable to receive absolution and communion because of being in a state of mortal sin, and yet be "fully a part of the Church" and "enter into a real communion with the Body of Christ"?

Mark Dobson said...

I agree that it seems strange, but I think he knows what he's talking about.

It occurs to me that if those who committed mortal sin were completely cut off from the Church/Body of Christ, absolution wouldn't be sufficient; they'd need to be baptised.

Lori said...

Yes I agree. It's a contradiction. I need to know what it is that ENDS that state of mortal sin for a remarried Catholic who cannot go to confession.

Catherine said...

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350098?eng=y

The ban on Eucharistic communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is increasingly contested and disobeyed. Benedict XVI is standing firm. But he is republishing an essay from 1998 that opens two loopholes, the second entrusted to conscience
it is well known that this question is very close to his heart. He has spoken of it repeatedly in the past, and has said that "the problem is very difficult and must be explored further." Benedict XVI returned to the issue in indirect form: with the republication in "L'Osservatore Romano" of a "little-known" essay of his from 1998, supplemented with a footnote presenting his remark on this issue to the clergy of the diocese of Aosta on July 25, 2005. An important footnote, because it concerns precisely one of the points on which Benedict XVI maintains that an exception could be opened in the general ban on communion.
Ratzinger addresses the objection of those who maintain that the Catholic Church should imitate the more flexible practice of the ancient Church and of the Eastern Churches separated from Rome.

The pope recalls that in the first centuries, some Fathers "sought pastoral solutions for rare borderline cases," and mentions the name of Saint Leo the Great. But overall, he says, "divorced and remarried members of the faithful were never officially admitted to Holy Communion," not even after a period of penance.

In the following centuries, however, the pope says there were two opposing developments:

"In the imperial Church after Constantine, with the ever stronger interplay between Church and state, a greater flexibility and readiness for compromise in difficult marital situations was sought. Up until the Gregorian reform [of the eleventh century], a similar tendency was present in the Gallic and Germanic lands. In the Eastern churches separated from Rome, this development progressed farther in the second millennium and led to an increasingly more liberal praxis."

In the West, however, "on account of the Gregorian reform, the original concept of the Church Fathers was recovered. This development came to its conclusion at the Council of Trent and was once again expressed as a doctrine of the Church at the Second Vatican Council."
But he continues:

"Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians � baptized persons who never did or who no longer believe in God � can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is 'ipso facto' a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a 'valid' marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, � 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the 'absence of faith' would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being."

In a footnote added to the bottom of the essay is the statement to the priests of Aosta in which the pope revisited and developed this reasoning:

"Those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various bishops� conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people's painful plight, it must be studied further."

Ian said...

It is wrong that people are trapped for years and sometimes for the rest of their lives because of a failed marriage. Jesus speaks very little about this aspect of life but it has become the main stumbling block for many catholics because of the attitide of the catholic church. Surely, if God asks us how we have lived our lives, He is not going to dwell on our domestic situation. if going to heaven depends on being married or divorced, there's something wrong with the system.

Mark Dobson said...

�Jesus speaks very little about this aspect of life�.

What he does say is rather clear though; it�s no use chalking it up to the Big, Bad Catholic Church when it�s pretty clear that the Church takes Jesus at his word.

�if God asks us how we have lived our lives, He is not going to dwell on our domestic situation.�

I do a great deal of my living in my domestic situation; it makes perfect sense for someone who is considering my life to �dwell� on it.

James said...

Oh Mark, don't you know anything?

Jesus is only interested in what happens on a Sunday morning at Church

The rest of the week is not about God at all! Anybody who says otherwise is a Pharisee!

Salisbury John said...

The separation of the unitive from the procreative - i.e. widespread acceptance and use of contraception including and especially amongst Catholics has done more to increase divorce than any other single contributory factor.
"..There exists some�thing like a litany of objections to the practice and teaching of the Church, and nowadays its regular recitation has become like the per�formance of a duty for progressive-thinking Catholics. We can ascertain the principal elements of this litany the rejection of the Church's teach�ing about contraception, which means the placing upon the same moral level of every kind of means for the prevention of conception upon whose application only indi�vidual "conscience" may decide, the rejection of every form of "discrimination" as to homosexuality and the consequent assertion of a moral equivalence for all forms of sexual activity as long as they are motivated by "love" or at least do not hurt anyone: the admission of the divorced who remarry to the Church's sacraments; and the ordination of women to the priesthood.....this way of thinking first became an actual possibility through the fundamental separation�not a theoretical but a practical and constantly practised separation�of sexuality and procreation. This separation was introduced with the pill"
Cardinal Ratzinger L'Osservatore Romano July 1989.

kim said...

That is extremism & is unsubstantiated. The church from Pope Gregory the Great & down the ages held sex in marriage as a necessarry evil tainted with sin even in cases of procreation.Contraception was always around.When french Bishops in the late 1800s asked Rome for advice in the belief the french were using contraception at times to curb the population explosion,the response from Pope Leo was "not to interfere with the consciences of couples". In the 9nth century at the council of Aux-La-Chapelle they openly admitted that abortions & infanticide took place in monasteries from uncelibate clerics.What your alluding to always existed,its just more open today with media

Catholic Mother said...

Retrouvaille presents hope in the area and gives the testimony of many couples who have been through hard times.

A marriage can become, de facto, unhappy and unworkable, by someone else elbowing their way in. It is a falsehood that there is a second happy-ever-after marriage out there for everyone.

Ian said...

It seems ridiculous and totally unfair to divorced catholics that they cannot receive absolution and are not supposed to receive Communion when other Catholics can commit a variety of sins, some of which cause immense damage to themselves and others, and yet can receive absolution and start again. The Catholic Church is hung up on divorce. I dont believe God will condemn someone who's been married half a dozen times, never mind twice. Doubtless there are lots of holy people out there who will disagree.

Mark Dobson said...

But it�s misconception to say that the divorced can�t be absolved and receive communion; they can � all Catholics can.

What is true is that there are conditions, conditions which many find extremely hard to accept. You can�t be absolved for a sin which you have every intention of persisting in, and you can�t receive communion in a state of mortal sin.

It is worth bearing in mind that even Catholics in a state of grace cannot receive absolution or communion if they are not properly disposed.

VOAT said...

if they are NOT properly disposed [ie detached from sin] then they are not in a state of grace...

Mark Dobson said...

I don't believe that's correct.

"Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace" (quoted in CCC 1863), and you can be attached to 'only' venial sins (c.f. conditions for achieving a plenary indulgence).

Besides which, attachment to sin isn't the same as committing a sin. Mortal sin removes us from the state of grace (CCC 1861), but that involves something more than attachment to sin, being "committed" for one thing:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: �Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.� - CCC 1857

Ian said...

Well its a fact of life that many remarried catholics do receive communion. Does that make them any worse in the eyes of the Catholic Church? How many times can you be condemned?

Mark Dobson said...

It�s not ultimately about what the Church thinks, but about the spiritual reality of what they are doing:

�So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.� - 1 Corinthians 11

The Church doesn�t want anyone to wound themselves by adding sin to sin, or to become spritually weak and sick. These are the consequences, as revealed to us by God.

Salisbury John said...

they are recieing unworthily but probably in most cases in ignorance because the priests are too cowardly and weak and lacking in devotion to the Eucharistic Lord and the purity of intentuion to receive Him therefore leaving the poor souls to live "with impossible contradictions" as John Paul II puts it but in the end it will be the priests who will have to answer for these souls far more than the individuals must give an account of themselves.
Christ is the Bridegroom. he marries His Church the Bride and consummates the union by His sacrifice on the Cross. Jesus dis not marry a harem...marriage embodies and personifies in the Church this heavenly union of absolute fidelity- hence the imppossibility of valid sacramental second unions [unless under certain circumstances]
in short we do not understand the FULL meanbing of sacramental marriage for the salvation of the world and its intrinsic linki with the Eucharist..that's why so many imagine they can just take Communion for sentimental reasons with impunity.

Lori said...

You quoted "leaving the poor souls to live "with impossible contradictions" as John Paul II puts it"
This hits me as I am a remarried Catholic and found with God's grace repentance. But I really don't know how to live now, as my husband will not agree with me to live as brother and sister (he is Protestant) whilst I believe this would be the right thing to do in our situation, also and in the first place as atonement for our sins;
Nowhere can I find any direction how to deal with this

Mark Dobson said...

I�m afraid I�m short on advice; I think I�d suggest speaking to a priest about it though. Hopefully others will have other, more specific suggestions to make. I wish I could remember what they usually say on Catholic Answers Live: you�re certainly not the first person to have wrestled with this.

Perhaps I come across as judgmental in these comments; I can assure you of my prayers and that I have no interest in �throwing stones� at you. For what it�s worth, I have great respect for anyone who even contemplates doing what the Church asks in these situations.

J Wilson said...

It is ridiculous that they cannot be forgiven for one mistake. They may have tried to make things work but in the end couldn't. The other thing is that it could in fact be just one of the couple who is at fault e.g. one may have become an alocholic or may turn out to be violent. Why should the other then be refused communion. And if we go back to Jesus, we know he showed compassion to the woman who had committed adultery. So if we follow his lead, he did not actually condone adultery but he did point out that its unlikely that anyone else there was completely sin-less. So who is anyone to say how blameless or otherwise someone else is. I am very very against this proclamation.