Catholics: Let's talk second class church membership

Great Debates
21

Not to focus on the marriage thing :), but, in the eyes of the Catholic church, you don’t have a legitimate second family…you have a mistress that you’re committing adultery with (and maybe kids from that, who you do owe obligations to as a father). I know it sounds harsh, but unless your first wife dies or you get the marriage annulled, you’re not free to marry again in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

As long as you’re continuing the second relationship, therefore, you’re committing moral sin, and you can’t be absolved of that, because part of absolution involves repenting of the sin, and attempting to stop committing the sin. No repentance, no absolution, and you can’t receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin.

22

I agree with Sapo, on this.

I know that this isn’t the same thing as excommunication, but it really seems like an “unofficial” version of it.
[ol]
[li]You’re still able to attend Mass; just unable to receive Communion.[/li][li]You’re basically being shamed into repenting the mortal sin you’ve committed.[/li][/ol]
What purpose is the Church serving for people in this state of mortal sin, other than trying to guilt them into “undoing” the sin?

But, if you still have that mortal sin on your shoulders, you’re not actually participating in spiritual communion are you? (In the eyes of the church, that is?)

Yes, but prohibition from partaking of the Eucharist is part of excommunication. And prohibition from partaking of the Eucharist is also part of being treated as a “second class Catholic”.
LilShieste

23

monavis, (as with anything that touches on rules and regulations), there are a number of situations that are addressed differently. In general, the marriage must be witnessed by an official representative of the church, (although the ministers of the sacrament are the husband and wife, not the official witness), and such a witness must usually be a deacon, priest, or bishop. The church does recognize a few exceptions for extraordinary circumstances, but digging them out for review would hijack this thread.

HOWEVER,

kanicbird, those rules refer to the juridical and licit actions of the marriage within the church. The RCC fully recognizes the sanctity of marriages performed outside the church, particularly in regards to persons who are not, themselves, Catholic. There is no claim by the RCC that millions of people in the world are “living in sin” for having not gotten a priest to bless their Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or even Assembly of God marriages.

24

without an explicit desire to further linger on the matter of a secondary nuptial agreement (or something like that, I am running out of those), the other spouse (if on a first marriage) and the kids (who are in no fault), are being left with quite a contradicting witness, IMO. With a church that values one member of the family less than the rest. With a family that is labeled as broken (or as a non-family)

And this brings us full circle to the main issue. Is the family supposed to keep going with one spouse just sitting there (what I believe is suggested)? In my case, we just gave up on the whole thing. I don’t want to join a club to ask them to change the rules for me. I will just look for a club that already has the rules where I fit.

And again, I am not criticizing the church for sticking to their rules. Quite the opposite, one thing I liked about Ratzinger is that he was always a champion for a tighter, smaller, more united church instead of a mob of crowd pleasers.

What I have a trouble figuring out is why do they want a person who is not willing to join in communion to stick around and make bulk.

25

and again, continuing with the hijack, this is why I don’t think that the church would expect a member to just break a second marriage. They may not be married by the Catholic church but they are (presumably) married under some type of law. There IS a marriage.

26

Can you provide examples of situations where Roman Catholics are prohibited from partaking of the Eucharist, but are not regarded by the RCC as having been excommunicated?

27

[this is not a RCC view AFAIK]The above can be taken as a legal arrangement that locks one into sin, aka a contract with the devil. It is a spiritual issue that has to be resolved by the people bringing the issue before the throne of God Himself. Along with repentance one has to break the contract and only God can do that*, not necessarily the legal one (but perhaps) but the one that the devil holds against the person. Also note that there are ways to divorce and remarry that are allowed scripturally which this does not apply to.

  • Perhaps Satan technically can also, since he is the one holding it against the people but in reality I don’t see that happening.
    [/this is not a RCC view AFAIK]

I don’t know what the RCC view on it is however.

28

That does not mean that just because a person is prohibited from partaking of the species of the Sacrament that person is excommunicated.

A little help for you in Logic: If A then B does not mean If B then A.

In your opinion. Notice the underlined word there, please. I’m not Catholic and yet I can still see that it’s not treating them as second-class. It’s something that each and every member of that church is subject to if they do not adhere to the rules of that church.

To the poster who seems to think excommunicates are prohited from even attending mass, please provide a source for that assertion. I’ve been under the impression my entire life that excommunication is a method to get a member of that church to repent of their ways and realize that whatever “their ways” is, it’s serious enough to the church to remove their membership; however, that church wishes them to, and will support them in so doing, return to membership.

29

Well, anytime I have an unconfessed mortal sin ( which might include missing Mass on a Sunday or Holyday of Obligation without sufficient reason), I’m not supposed to receive Communion. Most people have been in this situation at one time or another , and I’ve never heard of anyone refer to it as excommunication. I believe excommunication carries additional penalties, such as a prohibition against being buried in consecrated ground.

Oh, and I don’t think the Church expects anyone to get a second divorce. My understanding from people who’ve been in the situation is that the usual advice is to " live as brother and sister " while seeking an annulment of the previous marriage.

30

I’m not trying to say otherwise. I’m saying, “If A then B; If C then B; So, there might be some similarities between A and C… and not just their relationship to B.”

It’s my contention that the only thing separating excommunicated members from members tainted with mortal sin, is an official stance on how those members address other members of the church. (e.g., An excommunicated member may attend Mass, but is not allowed to be the person who conducts one of the readings.)

I completely acknowledge that it’s my opinion that the Church is treating these people as second class members.

Isn’t this the same kind of thing that’s being accomplished by denying someone the Eucharist, though? Whatever “their ways” is, it’s serious enough to prevent them from coming in union with God.
LilShieste

31

Since every time I go to church (which is not too often) I never participate in communion, let me tell you this… For me, going to Mass is much much more than communion.

Heck, communion is towards the ends of it! The sermon, that is what I go for. The prayers, that’s what I go for. Being there to tell God that I still believe, do my own silent prayers, etc. My favorite part is when we do the “peace unto others”. I like wishing well to others. I can still do all that without receiving communion.

My grandparents, like I mentioned, they still went to church and Mass regularly for 40 years, and never participated in communion. Again, to them, church and Mass was much more than that. It also becomes a community, they befriended priests for example, and participated in church activities.

Oh, and if you married someone who is divorced, neither one can participate in communion, not just the divorcee.

Sapo, I think you probably see that as something like “but I’m missing all the fun! Why am I going?”… I don’t feel it that way. Mass is much more than communion, just because I cannot participate in that does not negate me all the other things that happen there. Just because I am not in communion does not mean that I cannot get blessings, from example (and I won’t deny any blessing coming my way!).

Yea, I’ve been with my family to Mass and none of us (dad, divorced, mom, married to dad, and me, black sheep) participate in it. We still like it, we still enjoy it, we still get out of it what we seeked.

32

I can’t speak for Sapo, but I am someone who attends Mass but unable to receive Communion. I wouldn’t necessarily characterize my feelings as “but I’m missing all the fun!”, but I have to admit I feel “cast aside” during the entire ceremony. This, IMHO, goes against one of the purposes of a church.

And I realize that this is supposed to guilt me into taking steps to “rectify” the situation, so I can be fit to receive Communion, but it sometimes creates a sense of resentment instead. (And it kind of pains me to say that.)
LilShieste

33

Your posts above indicated otherwise. Especially with the use of “excommunication” in it.

An excommunicated member, though, is encouraged to return to membership in the church. There are, of course, certain requirements to do that. A person who has not been excommunicated does not need to “return to membership.” They merely need to rectify whatever the action is that prevents them from partaking of the species. That is not excommunication.

Your If A then C analogy still falls apart.

And, yet, they’re not. They’re treating them as members.

There’s a lesson for them in that. You or I may disagree with the lesson, or even the methods of teaching it, but it is not treating them as 2nd class.

34

Then I apologize for the confusion. Let me try to clarify by saying: Being prohibited from partaking in Communion is not excommunication, but it might as well be.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I acknowledge that I might just be getting caught up in semantics. (To me, it’s looking more and more like that’s the case.)

If I’m riding on an airline in coach, I know the airline is treating me as a passenger. But it’s treating its first class passengers a lot differently. Yes, there’s a reason for that, and yes I could have bought a first class ticket, but I’m still being treated as a second class passenger.
LilShieste

35

In this thread, we’ve already distinguished that chronic state that presumably all Catholics routinely experience, with its fairly mundane and straightforward remedy of going into a confessional booth and confessing one’s sins, from a long-term and potentially permanent exclusion from the Eucharist over quite nontrivial issues, life circumstances, or what have you.

Not being a Catholic myself, I don’t know if your understanding is correct. But if it is, then it suggests that Catholic marriages are easily and almost predictably demonstrated to have not been ‘real’ marriages as the need arises.

36

er, yes but no. The sin of remarriage is not the sex. It is the remarriage itself. If it were the sex, well, let’s just say I could go to confession everytime and not have the priest come to know me and remember me. :o

There is simply no way you can gain absolution while you are remarried.

37

Why does it suggest that? Do you assume that annulments are granted for trivial reasons? What is “predictable” about this?

38

No, Sapo, IIRC, there was something said at one time or the other (some years ago), that if the people involved “lived like brother and sister”, then they could still participate in communion, since the remarriage hadn’t been consummated.

I don’t know anyone who is remarried and does that, so by default they don’t participate.

39

This was a very common topic while I was on the seminary. Every time we went together to mass at a new place, we would ask “if an extraterrestrial came and spied on the mass, what would he think?” The Lord’s prayer would almost always come across as the climax of mass. The “peace unto you” would also rank high up there. The eucharist, not so much. Very little show, a very personal and introspective moment.

But the Eucharist is everything. Everything else is frosting and special effects. The Catechism makes quite a point of this. Everything else you can easily find elsewhere, the wisdom, the comradery, the joy. The Eucharist is the only thing that has no substitute and cannot be found anywhere else.

It is not that you are missing all the fun, it is that you are only getting all the fun. And none of the substance.

Going to mass and not participating of the Eucharistic Communion is like being scuba diver and content yourself with watching the Discovery Channel instead of getting in the water.

(And please, don’t take this as putting you or your family down. It is how I feel and why it bothers me, just my personal take on it. Each one is free to discern his own path to Salvation and act on it)

40

Marriage annulments are being granted in a proportion that was simply unimaginable a couple decades ago (mostly on the US, btw). Sorry I don’t have a cite, but this was another of those regular topics at the table on the seminary. I doubt we can find reliable stats on this (I would be surprised if the church published them), but I will take the word of the priests who had to handle them (and had been priests for decades)