Companion library · Primary source

Sacramentum Caritatis §§27–29 (2007)

Pope Benedict XVI’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist as the “source and summit” of the Christian life — and the three paragraphs that name the Eucharist as the theological root of the indissolubility of marriage, the divorced-and-remarried as a “real scourge” the Church accompanies, and the marriage tribunal as the institutional pastoral response.

What this document is. A post-synodal apostolic exhortation — the form a pope uses to gather and promulgate the conclusions of a Synod of Bishops. Sacramentum Caritatis was issued by Pope Benedict XVI on 22 February 2007 (the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter) following the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which had been convoked in October 2005 to deliberate on “The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church.” It is the most extensive papal teaching of the past twenty years on the Eucharist as such, and within it §§27–29 form a discrete unit on the Eucharist’s relationship to the sacrament of Matrimony.

Why a petitioner reads it. Because §29 is the most direct and consequential papal teaching of this generation on the Eucharistic situation of the divorced and the divorced-and-remarried, on the path of return, and on the Church’s commitment to the marriage tribunal as the pastoral institution that addresses the question of validity. The three paragraphs together explain why the discipline is what it is — not as a legal punishment, but as a theological correspondence between the indissoluble Christ-Church bond made present in the Eucharist and the indissoluble bond entered in sacramental marriage. The reasoning is anthropological and Eucharistic before it is canonical; the canons of the 1983 Code follow from it.

How §§27–29 read together. §27 establishes the Eucharist as a nuptial sacrament — the sacrament of the Bridegroom (Christ) and the Bride (the Church). §28 derives the unicity of Christian marriage from this Eucharistic root (one man, one woman). §29 derives the indissolubility — and from indissolubility derives the Church’s pastoral framework for those whose marriages have been broken by divorce and, in some cases, civil remarriage. Read in this order, the framework is not a sequence of rules: it is a single theological argument that arrives, by the end of §29, at the door of the marriage tribunal.

What follows

§27 — The Eucharist, a nuptial sacrament
§28 — The Eucharist and the unicity of marriage
§29 — The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage
Reading §§27–29 inside the tribunal process
A note on Sacramentum Caritatis and Amoris Laetitia

Section I

§27 — The Eucharist, a nuptial sacrament

Sacramentum Caritatis §27

The Eucharist, a nuptial sacrament

The Eucharist, as the sacrament of charity, has a particular relationship with the love of man and woman united in marriage. A deeper understanding of this relationship is needed at the present time. Pope John Paul II frequently spoke of the nuptial character of the Eucharist and its special relationship with the sacrament of Matrimony: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of our redemption. It is the sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride.” Moreover, “the entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist.” The Eucharist inexhaustibly strengthens the indissoluble unity and love of every Christian marriage. By the power of the sacrament, the marriage bond is intrinsically linked to the eucharistic unity of Christ the Bridegroom and his Bride, the Church (cf. Eph 5:31–32). The mutual consent that husband and wife exchange in Christ, which establishes them as a community of life and love, also has a eucharistic dimension. Indeed, in the theology of Saint Paul, conjugal love is a sacramental sign of Christ’s love for his Church, a love culminating in the Cross, the expression of his “marriage” with humanity and at the same time the origin and heart of the Eucharist. For this reason the Church manifests her particular spiritual closeness to all those who have built their family on the sacrament of Matrimony. The family – the domestic Church – is a primary sphere of the Church’s life, especially because of its decisive role in the Christian education of children. In this context, the Synod also called for an acknowledgment of the unique mission of women in the family and in society, a mission that needs to be defended, protected and promoted. Marriage and motherhood represent essential realities which must never be denigrated.

The Eucharistic root, not the canonical floor. The starting point of the whole argument is not a canon and not a sacramental discipline; it is a Christological fact. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Bridegroom and the Bride. Every Mass makes present the moment Christ became the Bridegroom of the Church through the Cross. Christian marriage is not just commemorated by the Eucharist; it is rooted in it. The vow on the wedding day shares in the same Christ-Church bond that the Eucharist makes present.

What this means for the petitioner. Your wedding day, if your consent was canonically valid, did something more than initiate a civil contract: it brought into being a sacramental sign of the Christ-Church bond. That is the bond the tribunal is examining. Not the affection you felt, not the years you logged, not whether the marriage was happy or unhappy — the question is whether a true sacramental sign came into being at the moment of consent. If yes, the bond was real; the Eucharist itself stood at the heart of it. If no — if the consent was canonically defective in one of the substantive ways the Code names — then the sign did not come into being, and the tribunal’s task is to find out which.

St. Paul and the “great mystery.” §27 names Eph 5:31–32 explicitly. Paul writes that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” and then declares: “This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.” The Catholic doctrine of sacramental marriage is built on this verse. Read it slowly in your own Bible this week. The Church reads Eph 5 as the deepest scriptural justification for treating marriage between two baptized persons as inseparable from the Christ-Church bond — and therefore as participating in the indissolubility of that bond.

Companion note

The closing line of §27 — on the unique mission of women in the family and in society — is not parenthetical. Benedict XVI was carrying forward the “feminine genius” theology of John Paul II (cf. Mulieris Dignitatem, 1988; Letter to Women, 1995) into a Eucharistic frame. For a petitioner whose marriage involved a wife who was either the spouse who left or the spouse who was left, this line is important: the dignity and irreplaceability of the woman’s vocation in the family is reaffirmed by the same exhortation that addresses the Eucharistic situation of the marriage’s end. The Church does not see the failed marriage as a story in which women, in particular, are dispensable or interchangeable.

Section II

§28 — The Eucharist and the unicity of marriage

Sacramentum Caritatis §28

The Eucharist and the unicity of marriage

In the light of this intrinsic relationship between marriage, the family and the Eucharist, we can turn to several pastoral problems. The indissoluble, exclusive and faithful bond uniting Christ and the Church, which finds sacramental expression in the Eucharist, corresponds to the basic anthropological fact that man is meant to be definitively united to one woman and vice versa (cf. Gen 2:24, Mt 19:5). With this in mind, the Synod of Bishops addressed the question of pastoral practice regarding people who come to the Gospel from cultures in which polygamy is practised. Those living in this situation who open themselves to Christian faith need to be helped to integrate their life-plan into the radical newness of Christ. During the catechumenate, Christ encounters them in their specific circumstances and calls them to embrace the full truth of love, making whatever sacrifices are necessary in order to arrive at perfect ecclesial communion. The Church accompanies them with a pastoral care that is gentle yet firm, above all by showing them the light shed by the Christian mysteries on nature and on human affections.

Why unicity follows from the Eucharist. The Eucharist makes present one Christ’s love for one Church — not many Christs, not many Churches. Christian marriage, as a sacramental sign of that Christ-Church bond, accordingly is one man with one woman. Polygamy is not excluded by the Church because of a cultural preference for the European nuclear family; it is excluded because polygamy is structurally incapable of imaging the Christ-Church bond. The unicity is the bond’s nature, not its decoration.

Application to the petitioner. The unicity teaching has a direct practical edge for the petitioner: there is no second sacramental marriage while a first sacramental bond exists. Civil law may recognize a second civil marriage. The Church does not regard the second civil union as a sacrament until the first is declared null. This is the canonical reason the tribunal’s answer matters so much: the question is not whether the first relationship is over emotionally or socially or financially; the question is whether the sacramental bond was ever in fact created. If yes, no second sacrament can be celebrated while the first endures. If no, the way opens for a true first sacramental marriage.

The catechumen analogy. The polygamy-to-the-faith case Benedict XVI describes here is not the petitioner’s case — but the principle it illustrates does apply. Those who come to the Gospel from an irregular situation are met with pastoral care that is “gentle yet firm.” The Church does not pretend the situation is already what it should be; she also does not slam the door. She walks the convert (or the petitioner) toward the “radical newness of Christ” over time, naming what must change and helping it change. The same posture governs the Church’s relationship to the Catholic petitioner whose marriage has broken: gentle yet firm, accompanying without pretending.

Section III · The petitioner’s paragraph

§29 — The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage

Sacramentum Caritatis §29

The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage

If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved. The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2–12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.

When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded. Consequently there is a need to ensure, in full respect for canon law, the presence of local ecclesiastical tribunals, their pastoral character, and their correct and prompt functioning. Each Diocese should have a sufficient number of persons with the necessary preparation, so that the ecclesiastical tribunals can operate in an expeditious manner. I repeat that “it is a grave obligation to bring the Church’s institutional activity in her tribunals ever closer to the faithful.” At the same time, pastoral care must not be understood as if it were somehow in conflict with the law. Rather, one should begin by assuming that the fundamental point of encounter between the law and pastoral care is love for the truth: truth is never something purely abstract, but “a real part of the human and Christian journey of every member of the faithful.” Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.

Given the complex cultural context which the Church today encounters in many countries, the Synod also recommended devoting maximum pastoral attention to training couples preparing for marriage and to ascertaining beforehand their convictions regarding the obligations required for the validity of the sacrament of Matrimony. Serious discernment in this matter will help to avoid situations where impulsive decisions or superficial reasons lead two young people to take on responsibilities that they are then incapable of honouring. The good that the Church and society as a whole expect from marriage and from the family founded upon marriage is so great as to call for full pastoral commitment to this particular area. Marriage and the family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is injurious to society itself.

The argument in one sentence. Indissolubility is not an arbitrary Church rule about marriage; it is the necessary anthropological-Eucharistic consequence of Christian marriage being a sacramental sign of the Christ-Church bond — and the Eucharist itself expresses “the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church.’’ A marriage that could be ended at will would not be a sign of that bond. The Church holds the indissolubility precisely because she holds the Eucharist.

Three distinct categories of the faithful are addressed by §29. Read carefully — the discipline is not the same for each:

· The divorced (not remarried). §29 does not bar the divorced (without a second civil marriage) from the sacraments. A Catholic who was divorced and has not remarried civilly continues to receive Communion, goes to Confession, lives the full sacramental life of the Church. The popular impression that “divorce means no more Communion” is incorrect Catholic teaching. The Catechism makes the same distinction (CCC §1649: “these faithful are not separated from the Church”). If you are divorced and have not remarried civilly, your sacramental life continues without interruption.

· The divorced and civilly remarried (no annulment). This is the category §29 addresses most directly. The Church’s practice, confirmed by the Synod and re-stated by Benedict XVI, is to not admit to the sacraments. The reason given is not punitive: the discipline is grounded in the objective contradiction between the state of life (a second civil union while the first sacramental bond remains) and what the Eucharist itself is (the sign of the indissoluble Christ-Church bond). To receive the Eucharist while in that state would speak against what the sacrament makes present.

· The divorced and civilly remarried, where the second civil union cannot be dissolved (children, etc.). §29 names the “brother and sister” path: living in fidelity to God’s law within the second civil arrangement as friends, not spouses. When the continence is genuinely lived, return to the Eucharist is possible (“taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard” — ordinarily discussed with the confessor or local ordinary, with discretion about scandal). The path is hard; §29 names it as hard. But it is named, by name, by a pope.

The Pope’s explicit endorsement of the tribunal

Read paragraph two of §29 again. “When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out…” That is Benedict XVI naming the marriage tribunal — the institution this Companion walks you through — as the canonically and pastorally appropriate response to a question about the validity of a sacramental bond. He goes further: he repeats his own “grave obligation” to bring the tribunal closer to the faithful. The tribunal is not a workaround the Church reluctantly tolerates. It is the institutional pastoral response to the question of validity. If you have legitimate doubts, you are obeying the call of §29 by walking the tribunal road.

“Love for the truth” as the integration of law and pastoral care. Benedict XVI rejects the common framing that “the law is one thing, pastoral care is another, and the pastor balances them.” He insists they meet at the point of love for the truth. The canonist who applies the law rigorously is being pastoral, not unpastoral, when he does so — because the truth of the marriage is what the faithful person needs. A pastoral response that hides or softens the canonical question is not actually pastoral; it leaves the person in the dark about his own sacramental reality. Hold this when the tribunal asks hard questions: the question is being asked because the answer matters — to your soul, to your children, to the Eucharist itself.

What §29 explicitly forbids. A blessing of irregular relations “lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.” This is the single explicit prohibition in §29 beyond the sacramental discipline. The Catholic father in an irregular situation may approach the priest for counsel, for spiritual direction, for the path of return; he may not request and the priest may not perform a quasi-sacramental blessing of the irregular union itself. The discipline keeps the sign clear.

The closing turn to marriage preparation. §29’s final paragraph turns toward prevention: pre-Cana training, examining the couple’s convictions regarding the obligations of the sacrament before the wedding. A petitioner who is now walking the tribunal road through the consequences of a wedding that was canonically defective at consent is, paradoxically, the witness to why §29’s closing paragraph matters: the question the tribunal is asking, years later, would have been better asked at the parish before the vows. Tell your children that — if and when they are old enough — in your own words.

Section IV

Reading §§27–29 inside the tribunal process

The petitioner reading Sacramentum Caritatis for the first time often comes to it with a single anxious question: “Am I allowed to receive Communion right now?” §29’s answer depends on which of the three categories above describes your present state. Walk through the categories slowly. The Companion cannot answer for your particular case — that conversation belongs in Confession with the confessor who knows your situation — but the structure is clear enough that a careful reading of §29 will tell you which question to bring to your confessor and the language to use.

The petitioner who is divorced but not civilly remarried, in good standing with monthly Confession, continues to receive Communion through the tribunal years. The tribunal’s answer does not change your present Eucharistic status; it changes what is open to you afterward (a future Catholic marriage, if the answer is affirmative, in the form proper to canonical convalidation if a civil marriage has occurred in the meantime).

The petitioner who is civilly remarried without a declaration of nullity is in the situation §29 directly addresses. The pastoral conversation here is delicate and case-specific. If the tribunal is in process, the question of present Eucharistic discipline is held within that process — in conversation with the confessor and, often, the judicial vicar or the local ordinary. If continence within the second civil relationship is genuinely possible and lived, the Eucharistic return path §29 names is open even before the tribunal returns its answer. If the tribunal returns an affirmative sentence, the path opens to canonical convalidation of the second relationship (or a new marriage entirely, where applicable) and ordinary Eucharistic participation. If the tribunal returns a negative sentence, the “brother and sister” path remains open, as does appeal (CIC can. 1628).

The petitioner who is still discerning whether to file reads §29 in a different light: as Pope Benedict’s explicit institutional endorsement that, when “legitimate doubts” exist, the tribunal is the right response. Doubt about the validity of a sacramental bond — whether your own or another’s — is not idle suspicion; it is the basis for the canonical investigation that §29 commends. The Catholic petitioner who has legitimate doubts and refuses to file out of weariness or shame is, in a real sense, declining the pastoral resource the Pope has just commended in the strongest terms.

Finally, every petitioner reads §§27–29 in light of the fact that Pope Benedict XVI begins not with the petitioner’s situation but with the Eucharist. The Catholic father in the tribunal years should imitate that order in his own prayer: begin not with the marriage, but with the Mass; not with the breakdown, but with the Eucharistic bond at its heart; not with what was lost, but with the Christ whose love is the standard against which the bond is being measured. The tribunal’s question is asked in the light of the altar.

Section V

A note on Sacramentum Caritatis and Amoris Laetitia

Reading SC §29 after AL 2016

In March 2016, Pope Francis issued the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, following the 2014 Extraordinary Synod and 2015 Ordinary Synod on the Family. Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII addresses, among other matters, the pastoral accompaniment of the divorced-and-remarried; certain paragraphs (notably §§300, 303, 305 and footnote 351) generated substantial theological discussion about the relationship between §29 of Sacramentum Caritatis and the pastoral accompaniment commended by Amoris Laetitia.

The Companion does not adjudicate this discussion. Three things must be said plainly:

1. The text of Sacramentum Caritatis §29 has not been amended. It stands as papal teaching of 2007 in its full force.

2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§1650–1651, holds the same discipline: “The Church for her part cannot recognize this new union as valid… They cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists,” while affirming that the divorced-and-remarried “are not separated from the Church.”

3. The application of the doctrine to particular cases — especially the diagnostic of moral culpability, the role of conscience, and the pastoral accompaniment that may, in certain regional applications of Amoris Laetitia, lead a particular faithful person to a different practical conclusion than the strict reading of §29 alone might suggest — is the work of the confessor and the local ordinary in conversation with the individual.

For the petitioner the practical implication is straightforward: read §29 carefully (you have above); do not attempt to settle the post-AL discussion by yourself; bring the particulars of your case to your confessor and, when the case warrants it, to the judicial vicar of your diocese or the local ordinary. The Companion’s role is to put the primary text in front of you and to direct you to the human persons in the local Church who hold the office of accompaniment. It is not to issue a verdict on your sacramental status.

Source. Benedictus PP. XVI, Adhortatio Apostolica Postsynodalis Sacramentum Caritatis, 22 February 2007. Promulgated in Latin in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 99 (2007) 105–180. Official English translation published by the Holy See at vatican.va. The text quoted above is verbatim from the Holy See English; paragraph numbers (§27, §28, §29) follow the canonical numbering of the exhortation as promulgated. Internal scripture citations (Eph 5:31–32, Gen 2:24, Mt 19:5, Mk 10:2–12) are as printed in the Holy See edition. The two embedded quotations in §27 are from Catechesi Tradendae and John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem respectively, as footnoted in the original.

What this Companion entry is and is not. The verbatim quotations above are taken from the official Holy See English translation of Sacramentum Caritatis. The commentary that follows each section is the Companion’s pastoral framing for the petitioner. The commentary is not a substitute for the confessor who knows your particular case, for an advocate or canonist (CIC can. 1481), for the judicial vicar of your diocese, or for the local ordinary’s pastoral guidance in your particular situation. Where the Companion commentary and the priest who knows your case differ on the application of §29 to your particular circumstances, the priest who knows your case governs your sacramental practice. Where the Companion commentary and the magisterial text of Sacramentum Caritatis differ, the magisterial text governs.

CIC 1671–1707, with commentary Mitis Iudex (2015) Dignitas Connubii (2005) Canonical-grounds diagnostic Back to the Companion