Francis urges priests not to push cohabiting couples away

[Fevronia]

I never said Hell is empty. I never said mortal sin does not exist. Oh, and what Pope Francis is saying is *not *modern. He is reflecting the teaching of Jesus who ate with sinners and tax collectors, much to the chagrain of the Pharisees of his day. He is not saying that we accept cohabitation. He is saying that we accept cohabiting couples. We need to accept gossips. We need to accept those that cheat on their income taxes. We need to accept those that are homosexual. We need to accept those who worship the dollare. In all of these cases we need to take care not to push these people away. This does not mean that the Church is just to “go through the motions”. Rather, Pope Francis believes that the call to sanctity is strong than scandal. Love of God is stronger than threats of Hell.

The Church before Pope Francis also was aware of the Gospel truths that Jesus reached out to sinners. The problem today is that somehow people act as if it just got known yesterday and the Church has to change in some way to be like Jesus.

Truth is, these sort of things have already been explained by Saints as they defended the Church in the past on how there is no contradiction between a Church that is unwavering in it’s proclamation of doctrine (both in faith and morals) and the compassion of Jesus. But for some reason, we are all suppossed to believe that it is something “new” and that the Church must change its pastoral policy.

If mortal sin is real and hell is not empty, then there is a risk that while we are tenderizing the flock, many are lost. That is what the Church said in the past and that is where I stand. Obviously, there is no way the Church can say today that what she said in the past was wrong, right?

You also did not say what new revelation we received from St. Faustina on Mercy that must make us change our traditional pastoral methods.

 

[opus101]

The way that the Church pushes divorced/ cohabiting people away now is by not allowing them to receive communion.

I don’t think that’s exactly it.
It would be “pushing them away” if they were not invited to enter on a journey of faith in the Church, and not encouraged to attend Mass.
Maybe the Pope has knowledge of priests who discourage those in this situation from even attending Mass.
They should be evangelized, and invited to RCIA and encouraged to attend Mass, even though they cannot receive Holy Communion.
The commandment to keep holy the Sabbath still stands for them. They still need to attend Mass.

 

[pnewton]

TIf mortal sin is real and hell is not empty, then there is a risk that while we are tenderizing the flock, many are lost. That is what the Church said in the past and that is where I stand. Obviously, there is no way the Church can say today that what she said in the past was wrong, right?

Right. Of course there is a risk. Just because I may believe that mortal sin is not as readily committed as you, or not as many go to Hell as someone else does not change one bit the way that we should live. We must live as if Hell is at our doorstep and with a goal of committing no sin, mortal or venial.

However, there is also a risk in pushing people away from the Church because they cohabit, are homosexual, or commit the lesser sins I mentioned above. That too is a risk. There is a risk (and a big one) in never speaking of these sins. The Holy Father says the sanctity trumps scandal. So I think we should try it his way and work on building holiness, with the teaching of the Church in all areas in place, but not preached out of balance, then let the Holy Spirit do the convicting.

You also did not say what new revelation we received from St. Faustina on Mercy that must make us change our traditional pastoral methods.

I never said she gave any new revelation. By “modern” I only mean she is a more recent messenger than Micah and Hosea of the vastness of God’s mercy. As Christians, the Incarnation itself is the biggest demonstration we have of this.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

opus

I was saying that, without an annulment, there is no way to know the legitimacy of a relationship,

But isn’t the legitimacy of their relationship really between them and not us ?

And since the sacrament of marriage might not be present, then why not ignore all other sacramental requirements for receiving Holy Communion, such as confession of mortal sins, having already received instruction and First Holy Communion, and heck…even baptism.

I have the feeling we’re going to be hearing from Pope Francis on this issue. One thing my former confessor told me about the conditions for mortal sin to be present, “it’s not infallible, but a guide.” I think Pope Francis is calling for closer pastoral work with couples on this issue.

You can’t throw one thing out without throwing many others out with it. They are all connected.

I don’t think it’s all that simple.

I don’t think that is what the Holy Father is talking about here. I think he is talking about pastoral approach.

Like I said before, I think we’re going to hear more from Pope Francis on this and other issues.

Pope Francis probably has a real concern for the state of souls in our world today. So many not only don’t have Christ in their lives, they’ve become apathetic, which is probably worse than having hatred of religion in itself.

Jim

 

[Fevronia]

Right. Of course there is a risk. Just because I may believe that mortal sin is not as readily committed as you, or not as many go to Hell as someone else does not change one bit the way that we should live. We must live as if Hell is at our doorstep and with a goal of committing no sin, mortal or venial.

However, there is also a risk in pushing people away from the Church because they cohabit, are homosexual, or commit the lesser sins I mentioned above. That too is a risk. There is a risk (and a big one) in never speaking of these sins. The Holy Father says the sanctity trumps scandal. So I think we should try it his way and work on building holiness, with the teaching of the Church in all areas in place, but not preached out of balance, then let the Holy Spirit do the convicting.

But the Church has always built on a rounded holiness. Not just abortion or contraception (which are modern problems as well). The only difference is that the Church in the past was always ready to call out errors and sins. The Church today wants to hold back in the name of compassion. What happens to the child that is aborted while the Church practices compassion?

I never said she gave any new revelation. By “modern” I only mean she is a more recent messenger than Micah and Hosea of the vastness of God’s mercy. As Christians, the Incarnation itself is the biggest demonstration we have of this.

So I am confused. Are you saying that for 2000 years the Church was without this awareness? All the saints speak about God’s mercy and so do the Popes. But they had no problems calling error for what it is.

Also, out of curiosity, do you believe in “Righteous Anger”? Do you think Christ sinned when he acted the way he did at the Temple?

 

[manualman]

The way that the Church pushes divorced/ cohabiting people away now is by not allowing them to receive communion.

How could we do otherwise? What’s your suggestion? Jesus explicitly (no wiggle room) said that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery. The church has also ALWAYS taught that anybody in a state of unrepentant serious sin must refrain from taking communion. Unlike tax evasion or porn, those who divorce and remarry do so in an extremely public manner. As a communal people, Catholicism can’t simply pretend not to notice, can we? What’s your plan?

Gee, if only there were a way in which the church offered to HELP people explore the causes of their broken marriage and evaluate what really happened. To see if what seemed to be a marriage really ever was one where “God joined” them together and to offer healing in cases where it wasn’t. Oh, wait. We already do that… What else CAN we do besides blow off Jesus’ teaching?

 

[opus101]

opus

I don’t think it’s all that simple.

Wow! Do you really misunderstand me that much? Good grief. I’m the one who thinks it’s “not that simple”. It affects many interconnected things.

Like I said before, I think we’re going to hear more from Pope Francis on this and other issues.

I think I said that too!
But the doctrine on marriage and the sacrament of matrimony will not change.
I’m not envisioning entire pages from the Catechism being erased.
Hopefully pastoral approaches involving evangelization and catechesis will be emphasized, and ways to include them in the life of the Church outside of Holy Communion.

 

[pnewton]

Also, out of curiosity, do you believe in “Righteous Anger”? Do you think Christ sinned when he acted the way he did at the Temple?

Sort of. It does exist, but I see it more often used as an excuse to lose control than something we are justified in expressing. Those of us lacking divinity can seldom express such anger without some taint. Anger is also one of the sins that St. Paul lists repeatedly.

As to God, I do not buy that we are “sinners in the hand of an angry God.” I do not even know if we in our fallen state can properly understand the wrath of God as it really is. Perhaps “anger” is just a close approximation. We are taught to call God Father. Maybe this is just another way in which we are like children. We see the punishment come and thing Father is angry because of the punishment, assigning the emotion we feel to an act born of love. God is not willing that any should perish. He died for the one who is cohabiting, as much for the one who is married in the Church.

I do not believe that Pope Francis is teaching anything new or this is a modern belief. What Pope Francis is doing has always be proper Christianity, shepherding as Jesus Himself was the Good Shepherd. Sitting down and eating with the Zacchaeus’s of the world, showing the he loves and cares for them, then letting them come to the point they want to repent and give back what they took.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

manualman;

How could we do otherwise? What’s your suggestion? Jesus explicitly (no wiggle room) said that those who divorce and marry another commit adultery.

Jesus words have to be understood in the proper context here. First, understand why the question was brought to Jesus, they were trying to trick him. Second, understand divorce in Jesus time. Men could divorce their wives, not so wives divorce their husbands. Often, the man divorced his wife because of his attraction to a younger woman.

So don’t compare this to a woman who ends up divorced because her husband was an abusive drunk who abandoned her, or a man who married because of pressure his parents put on him to marry in the Church and he couldn’t see a way out of it.

The church has also ALWAYS taught that anybody in a state of unrepentant serious sin must refrain from taking communion.

True, but how many in various situations are looking to repent and make their lives right before God, but don’t know how ? The Pope is inviting them to come take a look and see.

Unlike tax evasion or porn, those who divorce and remarry do so in an extremely public manner. As a communal people, Catholicism can’t simply pretend not to notice, can we? What’s your plan?

There are many reasons why marriages fail, and I can’t give the answer why. I know that Pope Benedict XVI himself said that lack of faith needs to be considered by marriage tribunals in determining annulments. If lack of faith is a reason why a marriage didn’t exist in the first place, it’s probable that faith will make the current marriage sacramentally valid. Until a couple in the situation looks, they may never know. Pope Francis is reaching out his hand to such people, as a good Shepherd must do.

It seems the devote are more upset about Pope Francis words than the sinners.

Pretty much what Jesus had to deal with from his own Apostles.

Jim

 

[Phemie]

Same place it always is, in the heart when a person realizes the need for repentance. What part of my post was the need for repentance or need for truth in the faith left out? Or did you just infer that I thought Pope Francis now believes that sin and/or truth doesn’t exist? I am amazed at how many people think our Holy Father is saying or doing anything outside of Church teachings. Saddened and amazed.

Unfortunately that’s exactly the spin that the media is putting on it and people are lapping it up. I just heard a talking head say that now gays and lesbians are welcome to be members of the Church – as if they weren’t before.

 

[Havard]

That is good advice for all, but the poster you quoted did not mention politics, so, you are right. Do not bring politics into it.

Unity needs to center around the Holy Father. He is the leader.

Forgive me if I am off-base, but “progressive” is a term associated with political divisions. I would have said say the same thing if someone applauded the Church of Holy Father for being “conservative”. IMO, neither word should become a term of approval, instead I hope we would just applaud words because they are good, and true.

 

[Fevronia]

Sort of. It does exist, but I see it more often used as an excuse to lose control than something we are justified in expressing. Those of us lacking divinity can seldom express such anger without some taint. Anger is also one of the sins that St. Paul lists repeatedly.

As to God, I do not buy that we are “sinners in the hand of an angry God.” I do not even know if we in our fallen state can properly understand the wrath of God as it really is. Perhaps “anger” is just a close approximation. We are taught to call God Father. Maybe this is just another way in which we are like children. We see the punishment come and thing Father is angry because of the punishment, assigning the emotion we feel to an act born of love. God is not willing that any should perish. He died for the one who is cohabiting, as much for the one who is married in the Church.

I do not believe that Pope Francis is teaching anything new or this is a modern belief. What Pope Francis is doing has always be proper Christianity, shepherding as Jesus Himself was the Good Shepherd. Sitting down and eating with the Zacchaeus’s of the world, showing the he loves and cares for them, then letting them come to the point they want to repent and give back what they took.

So what if I put it this way. If we were to take the saints before the 1900 mark, we can see that all of them hold a very different view to the positive overly optimistic view of today. It is the same case with almost every practicing Catholic at the time.

The Church’s teaching tell us that the faithful as a whole cannot be wrong on understanding the teaching of the Church (Sensus Fidei).

But now we are saying they are wrong and that our modern view of God is the correct one. How likely is that?

Also, do you think that all the passages you quote on Jesus were unknown to the multitudes of saints and Popes in the past? How is it that they not only had no issue but wrote justification and philosophical explanations for their bleak outlook (which they claimed was teaching of Christ as well) that many are going to be lost?

 

[ProVobis]

And they would probably be wrong. Perhaps the Spanish and Polish are much better at examining their consciences before Communion. Perhaps they are better at bringing friends and neighbors to Mass.

This could very well explain it. I know in the Polish cultures (at least where my parents were involved) there are quite a lot of divorces and remarriages. Yet they can’t do without their priests and they’d never think of skipping Mass.

Very interesting observation. Provobis. I also attend masses in English and Spanish and I have noticed the same thing… Though those who attend mass in english are mostly descendants of Hispanics… on the other hand the ones who attend mass in spanish were born in latin america.

Does that mean that Roman Catholics who attend the English Masses are more saintly and devout than those who attend the Spanish Masses?

Either that or all sins are venial amongst Anglophones.

 

[manualman]

1. Jesus words have to be understood in the proper context here. First, understand why the question was brought to Jesus, they were trying to trick him. Second, understand divorce in Jesus time. Men could divorce their wives, not so wives divorce their husbands. Often, the man divorced his wife because of his attraction to a younger woman.
2. So don’t compare this to a woman who ends up divorced because her husband was an abusive drunk who abandoned her, or a man who married because of pressure his parents put on him to marry in the Church and he couldn’t see a way out of it.
3. True, but how many in various situations are looking to repent and make their lives right before God, but don’t know how ? The Pope is inviting them to come take a look and see.
4. There are many reasons why marriages fail, and I can’t give the answer why. I know that Pope Benedict XVI himself said that lack of faith needs to be considered by marriage tribunals in determining annulments. If lack of faith is a reason why a marriage didn’t exist in the first place, it’s probable that faith will make the current marriage sacramentally valid. Until a couple in the situation looks, they may never know. Pope Francis is reaching out his hand to such people, as a good Shepherd must do.
5. It seems the devote are more upset about Pope Francis words than the sinners.

Pretty much what Jesus had to deal with from his own Apostles.

1. You betcha, context is always crucial. Nevertheless, Jesus made a profound claim about the nature of a sacramental union and it permanence. And your example is hardly a thing of the past, is it?
2. If the man was an abusive or alcoholic personality from the start, then the church ALREADY recognizes the potential that he had a real impediment that prevented consent in the first place. We already have an avenue of mercy for this!
3. For which I certainly applaud him, as should all repentant sinners.
4. I’m unfamiliar with this one. Are you saying lack of faith constitutes a defective consent? Can you recall when or where this was said? We’ve always invited people to stay with the church, even when struggling with sin. But because marital status is by definition public, we still can’t tell them to receive Eucharist. Attend, yes! Receive, no. Hard sell, but faithfulness often is!

But this claims raises sticky issues of its own. If clear lack of faith constitutes a defective consent, then by logical extension, must not the church start to refuse to marry those who demonstrate lack of faith during marriage preparation? This one cuts both ways!

1. Snarky. Neither you nor Daryll1958 is the pope. We’re arguing about what Francis MEANS and what the church should do next, not what he explicitly said so far.

 

[OriginalJS]

They wont see it as that, they’ll see it as condoning what they’re doing. If they’re cohabitating then they’re already not educated in the faith, so they’ll go up and receive communion even though they’re in sin.

They already do, I see it all the time.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I presume the NY Times article is on this forum somewhere, but a comment made by someone who self-identifies as a conservative Catholic pretty much nails the head on it for how I see how others perceive conservative Catholics like myself:

nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

I’m astonished by the hateful and ignorant comments that dominate here.

I’m a conservative Catholic (converted 17 years ago). I loved John Paul II and I’ve been thrilled with Francis. He hasn’t changed anything in the doctrine, but he’s just more effective in communicating what the Church is still about.

I can’t speak to what others have experienced decades ago, but in my conservative parish, I’ve never heard anything hateful towards homosexuality, abortion, non-martial sex, etc. That doesn’t mean that these behaviors aren’t acknowledged to be sinful, just that it’s exceedingly rare for them to come up as topics in mass (as it should be for services with children in attendance). It seems to me that the obsession is all on the side of the anti-Catholic haters, who choose only to pay attention to that which validates their hatred.

Even the people who are pleased by what they hear from Francis seem to be even more pleased by their hope that traditional Catholics might now somehow suffer.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Why would you push cohabiting couples away? Makes no sense. Even if some priests did have qualms about this, telling them they are unwelcome to come to church is not going to change anything.

 

[maklavan]

First of all, it isn’t necessary to receive Holy Communion when one attends Mass.

Second of all, if there has been no annulment, how could they be admitted to holy communion in the state of adultery? There are many things that would follow from that…for instance, all people with un-absolved sins of adultery would also have to be admitted to communion, and if that is allowed, then all with unabsolved sins of fornication would also be admitted, and the list goes on…

I think he is referring to types of approaches and how to help those in this situation to participate more fully (even if not in the fullest sense) in the life of the Church.

That’s just my opinion. I guess we will see what he means not too far in the future.

The opening statement here is one of the saddest I have ever seen. Holy Communion is, or ought to be, the centre of Catholic life. Jesus wanted us to obey Him, and receive the Sacrament worthily.He even warned,that it is vital to receive His Body if we are to live eternally with Him.To say it is not necessary is to receive ,is to cut oneself off from the rich Graces that come with receiving Communion.Yo be at Mass,and not be able ,or bothered to receive Communion, is the greatest tragedy.

 

[maklavan]

First of all, it isn’t necessary to receive Holy Communion when one attends Mass.

Second of all, if there has been no annulment, how could they be admitted to holy communion in the state of adultery? There are many things that would follow from that…for instance, all people with un-absolved sins of adultery would also have to be admitted to communion, and if that is allowed, then all with unabsolved sins of fornication would also be admitted, and the list goes on…

I think he is referring to types of approaches and how to help those in this situation to participate more fully (even if not in the fullest sense) in the life of the Church.

That’s just my opinion. I guess we will see what he means not too far in the future.

The opening statement here is one of the saddest I have ever seen. Holy Communion is, or ought to be, the centre of Catholic life. Jesus wanted us to obey Him, and receive the Sacrament worthily.He even warned,that it is vital to receive His Body if we are to live eternally with Him.To say it is not necessary is to receive ,is to cut oneself off from the rich Graces that come with receiving Communion.Yo be at Mass,and not be able ,or bothered to receive Communion, is the greatest tragedy.

 

[maklavan]

First of all, it isn’t necessary to receive Holy Communion when one attends Mass.

Second of all, if there has been no annulment, how could they be admitted to holy communion in the state of adultery? There are many things that would follow from that…for instance, all people with un-absolved sins of adultery would also have to be admitted to communion, and if that is allowed, then all with unabsolved sins of fornication would also be admitted, and the list goes on…

I think he is referring to types of approaches and how to help those in this situation to participate more fully (even if not in the fullest sense) in the life of the Church.

That’s just my opinion. I guess we will see what he means not too far in the future.

The opening statement here is one of the saddest I have ever seen. Holy Communion is, or ought to be, the centre of Catholic life. Jesus wanted us to obey Him, and receive the Sacrament worthily.He even warned,that it is vital to receive His Body if we are to live eternally with Him.To say it is not necessary is to receive is to cut oneself off from the rich Graces that come with receiving Communion.To be at Mass,and not be able ,or bothered to receive Communion, is the greatest tragedy.