Divorced Catholics cheer Pope Francis' views on modern family

[roseofshannon]

Catholics learn.

What do we learn?

 

[pnewton]

What do we learn?

That depends on the reader. One person may need to learn not to pidgeon-hole people. We think too much in types and not in individuals. Another may need to learn the responsibilty to attempt reconcilliation.

 

[Micosil]

OK, I need some serious clarification here.

On Jimmy Akin’s blog it says…

11) Does the document foresee any possibility for sacramentally absolving and giving Communion to people who are civilly remarried if they are not living as brother and sister?

It does. …]

On Catholic Answers, we have this:

Does the Church offer a way for these people to be reconciled with the Church and be readmitted to Communion?

Yes. John Paul II also stated:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance 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. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example 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 (ibid.).

…]

The letter, which John Paul II approved, pointed to the same solutions involving the parties repenting, going to confession, and either separating or living as brother and sister.

Concerning the third condition, there are also situations in which leaving a civil union would do great harm, such as abandoning an invalid spouse who has no one else to provide care, or when children are involved. The Church has thus recognized that there are situations in which continuing in a civil marriage may be morally permissible provided that the parties live as brother and sister.

The key condition is the fourth one: living the civil marriage on the basis of faith. The Church has historically understood this as entailing the obligation to live as brother and sister. If this condition is satisfied, the parties are not living in ongoing adultery and can receive absolution and Communion.

…]

What are they [Kasper et al.] proposing?

They are proposing to allow people to receive absolution and Communion even though they are not living as brother and sister.

In other words, after a period of reorientation and the fulfillment of the other conditions, people would be allowed to receive absolution in confession and Communion and then continue to have sex with each other even though they are not validly married to each other and are therefore committing ongoing adultery.

…]

Is it possible for a person who has a sacramental first marriage to contract a new marriage that is valid but non-sacramental while the first spouse is alive?

No. …]
**
Would the proposal actually require a change in Church teaching?**

Yes. If the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage were not changed, a change would be required in the Church’s teaching in at least one of the following three areas:

1. The gravely sinful nature of sexual relations with someone that you are not married to

1. The need to repent of one’s sins, including “the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future,” to be validly absolved in confession

1. The need to be in a state of grace to receive Communion

I don’t understand anything.

 

[mikekle]

Does anyone else find it highly strange so much of the secular world seem to love everything Pope Francis says and does?

I remember years past, the un-religious/ secular crowd would jump at the chance to protest or try to counter something the Pope said or did, in attempts at cutting the church down or justifying sinful behavior…come to think of it, I cannot recall ANYONE protesting anything Pope Francis has said or done…what is going on here?

I know some of this is due to his statements being misinterpreted, but once someone realizes their intended messages are not being conveyed properly, usually they are more direct and on point, so they are better understood, but this does not seem to be taking place…?

 

[JurisPrudens]

I do not understand what this means. You stated no one can no for sure if they are morally culpable. One does not confess those things that one does not believe to be sin just because outsiders may think there is sin. Yes, if one is unsure, then there is need for confession. If one thinks there is not sin, there is not.

There will always be doubts in a person who lives in an objectively wrong situations. They cannot assess for themselves how culpable they are and whether they are doing enough to improve. Only a priest can assess this for them. That’s my point.

 

[Tomdstone]

If a person has been divorced and then remarries, does the document mean that the priest can absolve that person and she can continue to live in the second marriage without sin?

 

[JurisPrudens]

OK, I need some serious clarification here.

On Jimmy Akin’s blog it says…

On Catholic Answers, we have this:

I don’t understand anything.

I don’t think Akin is precise on his point. He should add “if they don’t yet live as brother and sister”.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

If a person has been divorced and then remarries, does the document mean that the priest can absolve that person and she can continue to live in the second marriage without sin?

No, the document doesn’t suggest anything of the sort.

 

[JurisPrudens]

But if the priest absolves a couple and then the church sees them receive the Eucharist, and then go home to live as a husband and wife, how will this not lead to scandal? Won’t other divorce and remarried couples feel envious that their sins were not forgiven? Or to avoid the scandal of favoritism, does the priest decide to forgive everyone in that situation?

1. to avoid scandal, he/she might attend another parish.
2. you’re talking about a “couple”. Personally I see the Pope’s exhortation to be applicable mainly to a single divoced and remarried spouse, who is remarried to a non-Catholic (or a non-practitioner) and thus cannot easily leave him (her).

 

[Tomdstone]

No, the document doesn’t suggest anything of the sort.

Mr. J. Aiken wrote: “The document thus envisions administering sacramental absolution and Holy Communion to those living in objectively sinful situations who are not mortally culpable for their actions due to various cognitive or psychological conditions.”

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Mr. J. Aiken wrote: “The document thus envisions administering sacramental absolution and Holy Communion to those living in objectively sinful situations who are not mortally culpable for their actions due to various cognitive or psychological conditions.”

That’s the same approach taken with penitents who commit habitual sins that might be objectively grave but where there are extenuating circumstances that limit their subjective culpability. Masturbation is one example that frequently comes to mind. That doesn’t mean, however, that the penitent is able to confess and then continue to sin as before. There is still a firm purpose of amendment needed.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s the same approach taken with penitents who commit habitual sins that might be objectively grave but where there are extenuating circumstances that limit their subjective culpability. Masturbation is one example that frequently comes to mind. That doesn’t mean, though, that the penitent is able to confess and then continue to sin as before. There is still a firm purpose of amendment needed.

The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”

 

[Burt_Macklin]

The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”

Right. But children do grow up. I would imagine that once the children are gone the obligation to separate from bed and board would come back into force. And while the couple lives together they are still obligated to abstain from sexual relations. There isn’t any possibility of confessing and then living as a married couple.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Right. But children do grow up. I would imagine that once the children are gone the obligation to separate from bed and board would come back into force. And while the couple lives together they are still obligated to abstain from sexual relations. There isn’t any possibility of confessing and then living as a married couple.

Interesting point.

 

[Micosil]

There isn’t any possibility of confessing and then living as a married couple.

This is exactly what is tripping me up. This was my understanding too. But Jimmy Akin seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Mr. J. Aiken wrote: “The document thus envisions administering sacramental absolution and Holy Communion to those living in objectively sinful situations who are not mortally culpable for their actions due to various cognitive or psychological conditions.”

I just can’t stop laughing at this. Is this an oxymoron or a non-sequitur?

How can an un-culpable person be living in an objectively sinful situation?

 

[Micosil]

I just can’t stop laughing at this. Is this an oxymoron or a non-sequitur?

How can an un-culpable person be living in an objectively sinful situation?

I suppose a situation can be grave matter, but not necessarily sinful per se.

And as I asked before, if they are not “mortally culpable”, why the need for sacramental reconciliation? I am sorry to say, this is really, really all rubbing me the wrong way, and ever since last night I cannot stop thinking about it.

 

[JimG]

I suppose a situation can be grave matter, but not necessarily sinful per se.

And as I asked before, if they are not “mortally culpable”, why the need for sacramental reconciliation? I am sorry to say, this is really, really all rubbing me the wrong way, and ever since last night I cannot stop thinking about it.

And if the are entirely non-culpable, yet living in an invalid marriage, they would still need to live as brother and sister in order to receive confession and communion. Culpability or non-culpability does not affect the validity of a marriage.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I just can’t stop laughing at this. Is this an oxymoron or a non-sequitur?

How can an un-culpable person be living in an objectively sinful situation?

So are we really just moving from calling someone a sinner to calling someone ignorant?

 

[deaconjohnO]

So are we really just moving from calling someone a sinner to calling someone ignorant?

Please show some mercy here. Calling someone ignorant is not an act of mercy.