Not sure of what you said … but … if it’s true …
“That’ll happen once infallibility kicks in …”
I’m similarly uniformed about why he might have puroportedly deleted that passage … but I have some general thoughts on the overall subject. I’d be grateful of further enlightenment on any parts of the following I may have misunderstood or stated badly. :crossrc: :sad_yes:
– It is not the Church’s fault that some people scramble the egg and marry someone they should not have ( that is - outside of the sacramentality of “What ***GOD ***has joined together let no man put asunder”).
Yet for awhile, given the seriousness of Jesus’ " … let NO man put asunder" admonition, the Church might seem to deny some persons who really might be eligible to go to communion until an annulment (for instance) ruling on the sacramentality of what appeared to be a “… God has joined together” relationship is complete.
It may seem unjust that:
– (for example) an out and out womanizer (or the female counterpart to this) could merely go to confession and be absolved to validly return to grace and the Eucharist
– while a more consistently moral person who married their parter in the Church and later left that spouse must wait for the*** ruling that they were never in a sacramental marriage*** at all due to some impediment (e.g. their partner had no intention of living up to any of what they’d promised to do per being married in the Church).
But it’s something the Church does its best to reconcile within its power to do so (ideally).
Sometimes there is the complication of children. Also not the Church’s fault. The children, being created by God - are not at fault either. They all may be Baptized (as even children born completely outside of a marriage may be).
Where there are children in the “new marriage” - we may be sure that God wants them to be offered salvation and taught the Truth of Christ, even should technical baptism be delayed for some reason.
God blessing a non-marital union with a child is His doing … but is looked into with due scrutiny by the Church rather than rashly assuming that THIS time it’s “What God has joined together …”
In MY case my (technically-but-not-anymore Catholic) spouse left me … and while separated (and celibate), and divorced (against my wishes), I continued to go to Communion. Some other Catholics erroneously told me I shouldn’t be going (when in reality it is when I needed the Eucharist most). I had not broken any promises, so I kept going. Which is a bit different from being the one who walked away from their spouse.
Going to communion is mostly an honor system too. For the most part if one presents himself/herself, he/she will not be “denied” the Eucharist.
When they are it may be due to the fact that they didn’t say the required “Amen” to the declaration “The Body of Christ, The Blood of Christ” or otherwise telegraphed that they did not know what they were doing (as, say, an innocent non-Catholic might just fall into line and wander up to the Eucharist from time to time).
Or are such well known public sinners continuously advocating mortally sinful things that a priest or Bishop more directly excludes them from the sacrament (temporarily - as there is always a path back to the sacraments open to the person if they would choose it).
Per the “remarried”: This implies “remarried” outside the Church - as with an annulment it would just be “married sacramentally” and thus eligible to receive (if otherwise in the state of grace).
Many have gone through the annulment process, and had their “other marriages” blessed by the Church as being (at least until otherwise determined) “God joined together” and sacramental.
Only Benedict knows why this passage was deleted (or delayed or whatever). But the way things our Popes say or write are so often distorted by the press, it is no wonder that sometimes the pontiffs separate some aspects of their teachings into a more specific document at a later time.
From the CCC
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm < CCC from # 1601 - 1659 and …