Pope: Church Should 'Accompany' Those Divorced, Not Condemn

[pnewton]

Is grave offense the same as mortal sin?

I thought: mortal sin = grave offense/matter + full knowledge + full freedom

That is a good question. I do not think the two can be equated. A person must sin with a free will. A person can be divorced without any power to stop it. It is good that the Holy Father spoke. The more orthodox Catholics get, the more we need to remember charity, lest we become the Pharisees of today.

 

[Brigid34]

That is a good question. I do not think the two can be equated. A person must sin with a free will. A person can be divorced without any power to stop it. It is good that the Holy Father spoke. The more orthodox Catholics get, the more we need to remember charity, lest we become the Pharisees of today.

 

[ProVobis]

Point taken. I think he was referring to the situation in CCC 2386 (as you mentioned), but unilaterally divorcing one’s spouse and repudiating the marriage bond - as I said in my post - is certainly sinful.

And unfortunately our society glamorizes remarriage; even organizations like Christian Mingle and shows like the Bachelor, promote it. And even more unfortunate is that the Pope’s words will be taken in such a way as to vindicate this glamorization.

That said, I have to agree with those who claim the Church condemns no one to Hell. The divorced/remarried aren’t even excommunicated per se. They’re very much welcome to share in the life of the Church, promote the community, etc., especially if their kids are involved and there is no viable recourse to their marital state.

 

[Tigg]

I not aware of anyone in my circle that thinks divorcees should be denied compassion, so I assume this is an attempt to mollify the actual excrement storm that is brewing–namely, a certain quarter in the Church pushing for couples divorced and remarried without annulments to be admitted to communion.

See Dr. Peter’s recent entries dismantling the the lame arguments in support of this: canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

Cutting to the chase here:

But since the prelate [the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family] invoked law, let me frankly observe that canon law does not, as it happens, cite “mercy” as the supreme law of the Church. Instead, Canon 1752, the final canon of the 1983 Code, states that “the salvation of souls … must always be the supreme law of the Church.”

……the gravity and the clarity of Christ’s teaching against divorce and remarriage are beyond reasonable dispute and the obligation of the Church to uphold the integrity of the sacraments, of all the sacraments, is clear. To those struggling against the easy substitution of platitudes for sound and principled thinking about these and related vital matters, I can only say, shoulder on.

Neither do I know of anyone who condemns the divorced. It is however, patently distressing to be aware of and personally observe those remarried persons who place their own opinion above the very admonition of the Church that (may) save their souls.

 

[Elizium23]

Is grave offense the same as mortal sin?

I thought: mortal sin = grave offense/matter + full knowledge + full freedom

I think you all missed my sarcasm and use of colloquialism to make a point. I wasn’t trying to foster a deep theological discussion about the nature of sin, I was repeating things liberals say like “eating meat on Fridays isn’t a mortal sin anymore.” In that context I thought I was being witty, but I guess it sailed right over everyone’s heads!

:juggle:

 

[McCall1981]

I not aware of anyone in my circle that thinks divorcees should be denied compassion, so I assume this is an attempt to mollify the actual excrement storm that is brewing–namely, a certain quarter in the Church pushing for couples divorced and remarried without annulments to be admitted to communion.

See Dr. Peter’s recent entries dismantling the the lame arguments in support of this: canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

Cutting to the chase here:

Neither do I know of anyone who condemns the divorced. It is however, patently distressing to be aware of and personally observe those remarried persons who place their own opinion above the very admonition of the Church that (may) save their souls.

I don’t have an English translation, but Cardinal Caffarra just gave an interview where he said:

“Don’t touch matrimony of Christ, don’t bless divorce. Hypocrisy is not mercy”.

ilfoglio.it/soloqui/22326

 

[davidv]

I don’t have an English translation, but Cardinal Caffarra just gave an interview where he said:

“Don’t touch matrimony of Christ, don’t bless divorce. Hypocrisy is not mercy”.

ilfoglio.it/soloqui/22326

Where in these words is a condemnation of the divorced?

 

[McCall1981]

Where in these words is a condemnation of the divorced?

Um, nowhere. No one is condemning the divorced.

I found another snippet of the Card Caffarra interview, but still not the whole thing:

[Regarding Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal on the possibility of readmitting to communion, after a period of penance, the couples of remarried divorcees who ask for it, following a period of penance, Caffarra says:] “If the Church admits [them] to the Eucharist, she must anyway grant a judgment of legitimacy to the second union. That is logical. But now - as I asked - what to make of the first matrimony? The second, it is said, cannot be a true second matrimony, considering that bigamy goes against the word of the Lord. What about the first one? Is it dissolved? But the Popes have always taught that the power of the Pope does not reach that point: the Pope has no power over a marriage that is ratum et consummatum. The proposed solution leads us to think that the first matrimony remains, but that there is also a second kind of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes. It is, therefore, an extramarital exercise of human sexuality that the Church legitimizes. But with this, the foundational pillar of the Church’s doctrine on sexuality is negated. At this point, one could ask: so why are not free [extramarital or premarital] unions approved? And why not relations between homosexuals?”

it.tv.yahoo.com/notizie/card-caffarra-si-inizia-con-divorziati-e-si-110507430.html

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/cardinal-caffarra-firm-stance-on.html?m=1

 

[SuperLuigi]

Mark,
Sure secularists push their agenda. So do some people who want the Holy Father to condemn certain classes of people. Many people have agendas. That shouldn’t stop the Holy Father from teaching.

Who is trying to get the Pope to condemn someone?