Pope Francis: Divorced Catholics who remarry are not 'excommunicated.'

[Suudy]

Actually, you said it.

Actually, I didn’t. I never said it was a rash hypothesis.

The hypothesis is Matthew 7.1: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” To the hypothesis (premise), in your comment #226 you added what you termed an “unstated premise”. And you stated the following: “My point is that the word ‘rash’ doesn’t need to be there because it is implied, indeed even necessary.”

No, the hypothesis was not Matt 7:1. That was assumed. The hypothesis was that ‘rash’ judgments were the only types of judgments to which Christ was referring. And that was started back on post #219, when Ender stated:
It is not judgment itself that is forbidden but only rash judgment; clearly all judgments are not forbidden.
To which you replied in post #223:
“Judge not, that you may not be judged.” The word ‘rash’ is not in the verse nor in the verses that follow.

So, the hypothesis is not “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” Rather, it is whether or not that statement includes an unstated condition on judgment.

An unstated premise cannot be validly assumed in the premise of an argument. Neither can the word ‘rash’ validly be implied in the premise. The premise only says what it says. That’s all. It is not possible to prove by logic that Matthew 7.1 says only the following: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” It’s that simple.

Huh? I’ll admit my use of the term “unstated premise” was inaccurate. I should have stated something to the affect of “unstated condition” or “unstated qualifier.”

But I think you are completely missing the point. I never once questioned Christ’s admonition about judgment. I only questioned what appeared to be your attempt to broaden that His words to apply to all judgments.

To say that the meaning of the word ‘rash’ is not only implied in the premise but is necessary and is already there because it has to be there could hardly be more illogical when it clearly is not there in those eight words of the premise. This isn’t even a logical argument at all. I suggest you let it go.

Clearly you aren’t understanding the argument. The premise never was Matt 7:1. The premise was whether or not ‘rash’ was implied in the already admitted statement. Your re-framing of the argument in question isn’t correct.

I would note that my above comment (#232) is the result of several comments taking Matthew 7.1 out of the proper context in which I quoted the verse in my comment #214 and reducing it to the point where Matthew 7.1 would no longer seem to say what it does.

In post #214 you said:
That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in the state of mortal sin as a result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.
And Ender replied with:
It is not judgment itself that is forbidden but only rash judgment; clearly all judgments are not forbidden.
Which is exactly the point I was discussing. Clearly Christ did not forbid all judgments, for then how judges or jurors enter any judgment against anyone in a court of law? So there is clearly some conditions on Christ’s statement. There was some condition He didn’t state that applies. There is some “unstated condition” or “unstated qualifier” to judgments being made.

My concern really is that there are those who rarely, if ever, attempt to provide an informative comment and seem to confine themselves to disputing the comments of others.

In this particular case, I think it is important. If left unchallenged, it would be misleading. I’m disputing your interpretation of Christ’s words in Matt 7:1. And it is an important distinction. The (absurd) conclusion of your interpretation is that we should make no judgments at all. And that is a dangerous conclusion.

We all know there is a word that describes this type of activity that is so common on forums. But I for one am tired of it, and it is why I have said I no longer care to discuss this issue.

You’ve been here, what, a year? And you accuse me of being a troll when you haven’t read but a few of my posts?

Spare me. When you are done being a victim and want to continue to discuss the issue–an important issue–I’ll be happy to continue.

 

[Phil502]

St. Thomas does not use the word “objective.”

Now the question must be asked if it is objective mortal sin, that is, adultery, if the marriage they are in is the only current valid marriage. With or without a decree of nullity, the first marriage is either valid or not, based on the nature of the marriage, not the decree. This is objective reality.

This makes the most sense to me, if I get your meaning correctly.

We throw the term adultery around a lot and I see the Churches point here, but in some of our hearts, marriages fail, the relationship ends and we move on. Never was the intent to behave in a way that breaks the vow we took, that is to commit adultery and hurt our spouse or offend our Lord while there was an actual relationship in process.

At least the re-married have attempted to make a link for life with someone and not just take on a lifestyle with no boundaries.

I find it amusing that one can kill someone and go to confession and receive communion but a remarried person can not go to confession without an annulment, I would feel that the murderer has committed a way bigger sin.

 

[Thomas_White]

Actually, I didn’t. I never said it was a rash hypothesis.

No, the hypothesis was not Matt 7:1. That was assumed. The hypothesis was that ‘rash’ judgments were the only types of judgments to which Christ was referring. And that was started back on post #219, when Ender stated:
It is not judgment itself that is forbidden but only rash judgment; clearly all judgments are not forbidden.
To which you replied in post #223:
“Judge not, that you may not be judged.” The word ‘rash’ is not in the verse nor in the verses that follow.

So, the hypothesis is not “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” Rather, it is whether or not that statement includes an unstated condition on judgment.

Huh? I’ll admit my use of the term “unstated premise” was inaccurate. I should have stated something to the affect of “unstated condition” or “unstated qualifier.”

But I think you are completely missing the point. I never once questioned Christ’s admonition about judgment. I only questioned what appeared to be your attempt to broaden that His words to apply to all judgments.

Clearly you aren’t understanding the argument. The premise never was Matt 7:1. The premise was whether or not ‘rash’ was implied in the already admitted statement. Your re-framing of the argument in question isn’t correct.

In post #214 you said:
That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in the state of mortal sin as a result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.
And Ender replied with:
It is not judgment itself that is forbidden but only rash judgment; clearly all judgments are not forbidden.
Which is exactly the point I was discussing. Clearly Christ did not forbid all judgments, for then how judges or jurors enter any judgment against anyone in a court of law? So there is clearly some conditions on Christ’s statement. There was some condition He didn’t state that applies. There is some “unstated condition” or “unstated qualifier” to judgments being made.

In this particular case, I think it is important. If left unchallenged, it would be misleading. I’m disputing your interpretation of Christ’s words in Matt 7:1. And it is an important distinction. The (absurd) conclusion of your interpretation is that we should make no judgments at all. And that is a dangerous conclusion.

You’ve been here, what, a year? And you accuse me of being a troll when you haven’t read but a few of my posts?

Spare me. When you are done being a victim and want to continue to discuss the issue–an important issue–I’ll be happy to continue.

The discussion concerned the question of whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not been granted an annulment should be permitted to receive communion. During the course of this discussion, I stated the following:

“That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in the state of mortal sin as a result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.” (#214)

And here is the reply of post #219.

“It is not judgment itself that is forbidden but only rash judgment; clearly all judgments are not forbidden.”

Well, yes. So?

I would think any reasonable person would agree that the above reply is, in standard English, in and of itself literally correct. But how should it be understood as a reply to my comment of #214, a reference to the words of Matthew 7.1? That it would mean that to judge they neighbor as an adulterer would not be a rash judgement is hardly implied or an unstated premise in Matthew 7.1. Nor is it implied in the verses that follow.

How has this ever become an issue? Certain replies to comments, perhaps benign in themselves, too often result in unnecessary contention. I don’t wish to do it. For this reason, I have said in several comments that I do not want to continue with the discussion. I don’t believe it is possible anyway without ending up debating tangential questions that are far off-topic.

The OP topic is: Divorced Catholics who remarry are not ‘excommunicated’. As discussion of any topic occurs, it often does become broader but it doesn’t need to become contentious. There is a point where even continuing with a discussion is necessary contentious for one and all, or so it would seem. This concerns the discussion itself and not any particular participant in it. It is nearly impossible to halt this process since it is the nature of dialectics, and simply disputing a comment is an excellent way to begin the process. I think that was my point. It is only more difficult on a forum where the usual feedback, explaining, body language and so on that continuously occurs during in a live discussion is absent. Things are easily misunderstood. It seems to me it would be better to make one’s own comment by stating one’s own views on the question. So, only against my better judgment have I continued the current discussion. I cannot see how continuing it could not be contentious, and I don!t want to go there.

Peace.

 

[Phemie]

I find it amusing that one can kill someone and go to confession and receive communion but a remarried person can not go to confession without an annulment, I would feel that the murderer has committed a way bigger sin.

Absolution can only be granted if there is regret of the sin and a firm resolve not to commit it again. If you confess adultery and are going right back to bed with a woman who isn’t your wife, how can you be absolved?

 

[Tomdstone]

You’re missing another angle. Let’s say that a person who’s been civilly married to another person, and then later receives an annulment, does that mean they were NOT in mortal sin, since their previous marriage never occurred? But we’re missing the fact that they were NOT obeying the Church, and were attempting marriage outside the Church. They went and got married before the annulment, and without permission from their bishop. That is sin.

That is objective reality.

How do you know that they have met all the conditions for mortal sin?

 

[zz912]

I find it amusing that one can kill someone and go to confession and receive communion but a remarried person can not go to confession without an annulment, I would feel that the murderer has committed a way bigger sin.

They can go to Confession, and live as brother and sister until they get the annulment. If they do that, they can partake of Communion.

The murderer isn’t continuing to murder. That is the problem with remarriages, the sin continues.

 

[zz912]

How do you know that they have met all the conditions for mortal sin?

From the CCC:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1. Grave matter - adultery is grave matter, check.
2. Full knowledge - they know they were married in the Church and are attempting marriage outside the Church, check
3. Deliberate consent - they are freely attempting to remarry outside the church and sleeping with someone other than their spouse, check.

All three conditions are met.

 

[Tomdstone]

From the CCC:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1. Grave matter - adultery is grave matter, check.
2. Full knowledge - they know they were married in the Church and are attempting marriage outside the Church, check
3. Deliberate consent - they are freely attempting to remarry outside the church and sleeping with someone other than their spouse, check.

All three conditions are met.

It can be argued that they have not fulfilled conditions 2 and 3.

 

[Thomas_White]

But if they’ve remarried they have done so outside the Church. Even without the impediment of a prior marriage that would render their marriage invalid.

Yes, and the point of course is that If a marriage, any marriage, is invalid how could it be the case adultery is involved? An invalid marriage is by definition not a marriage.

 

[Thomas_White]

If you don’t wish to discuss it, then don’t post in the first place. You don’t get to throw out your opinion and then direct others not to respond.

And yes, they are objectively in mortal sin.

They are aware that they were married before. They are aware they were joined for life by the Church in their vows. They are aware that they haven’t received an annulment from the Church. They are aware that they have tried to marry outside the Church.

So yes, they are objectively in mortal sin.

Now if they have gone to Confession and are living as brother and sister, this is obviously not the case.

Anyone may object to a comment of mine however much they wish. My point was that I would not necessarily continue to take part in the discussion.

The first two of your premises are assumptions. One or both of the second marriage partners might question whether their first marriage was valid. It is the marriage ceremony and the legal marriage until civil law that are objective. But the validity of the marriage might in instances be subjective for one or both of the partners in the second marriage. In other words, one or both might question the validity of the marriage under Canon law, and we know that by a later Decree of Nullity that this subjectivity is in cases determined correct.

 

[Ender]

How do you know that they have met all the requirements to be in mortal sin?

The divorced and remarried live in a presumptive state of adultery. Since adultery is a mortal sin they also live in a presumptive state of mortal sin.

That is, the burden is on them to assert that they are in fact not having sexual relations with their spouse. In such cases they would be allowed to receive communion, albeit probably not publicly.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What might “largely unchanged” mean?

It means that St. Chrysostom didn’t explain the situation as completely as St. Thomas did.

Neither I nor anyone I have quoted or mentioned has said that a person in the state of mortal sin ought to receive communion.

In this case it ought to be obvious that a person who has divorced, remarried, and is having sexual relations with his spouse, cannot receive communion.

I don’t know how a question before the synod, which will only later make its recommendations to Pope Francis, could be considered resolved.

If you believe a person in mortal sin cannot receive communion then the “question before the synod” is resolved.

Adultery has a definition, and it had a definition in the language in which Christ said the words of Matthew 5:32. If by adultery Christ meant marriage, rather than the act of committing adultery, would the Church have provisions where divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment but are not committing adultery can receive communion?

The church has explained this: the sin is in the sexual relations, not the re-marriage. This is why she allows someone who has re-married to receive communion if that person no longer engages in sex.

“Judge not, that you may not be judged.” The word ‘rash’ is not in the verse nor in the verses that follow.

Again, the church does not limit herself solely to the words of Scripture. Here is her understanding of that passage:*Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Mt. 5. Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart. *(Aquinas ST II-II 60, 2-1)
Ender

 

[Ender]

St. Thomas does not use the word “objective.”

Now the question must be asked if it is objective mortal sin, that is, adultery, if the marriage they are in is the only current valid marriage. With or without a decree of nullity, the first marriage is either valid or not, based on the nature of the marriage, not the decree. This is objective reality.

The validity of the marriage is determined by the church, not by the individuals involved, and the marriage is presumed valid until specifically determined to be invalid. Reception of communion by someone who has remarried prior to the issuance of a decree of nullity is a sin even if the first marriage is later determined to have been invalid.*If a man acts against this judgment [of conscience] or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience. *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor #60)
Ender

 

[Suudy]

The discussion concerned the question of whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not been granted an annulment should be permitted to receive communion.

Yes.

Well, yes. So?

So you agree. There is some qualification on what Christ said.

I would think any reasonable person would agree that the above reply is, in standard English, in and of itself literally correct. But how should it be understood as a reply to my comment of #214, a reference to the words of Matthew 7.1? That it would mean that to judge they neighbor as an adulterer would not be a rash judgement is hardly implied or an unstated premise in Matthew 7.1. Nor is it implied in the verses that follow.

I’m not understanding your point. In #214, it appeared to me you were saying that Christ’s admonition against judgment should apply to divorced and remarried couples. It seemed to me that you were saying we could not judge a remarried couple because Christ commanded us to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” And Ender’s point that such an admonition was only against rash judgments.

Is judging a divorced and remarried couple as being in an adulterous situation a rash judgment? It seemed you were saying it is. Is that what you were trying to say?

How has this ever become an issue?

Because, it appears you are saying we cannot make a reasonable judgment about the adulterous state of a divorced and remarried couple, and you based it upon Matt 7:1. If that’s not what you were doing, then I’m sorry for the disconnect and the back and forth. If it is what you mean, then I disagree, and I think such an interpretation dangerous and leads to an absurd conclusion.

 

[Tomdstone]

The divorced and remarried live in a presumptive state of adultery. Since adultery is a mortal sin they also live in a presumptive state of mortal sin.

It may be grave matter, but they might not have fulfilled the second and third requirements for a sin to be mortal. You have to have full knowledge and deliberate consent for a sin to be mortal. You don;t know if they had such.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, and the point of course is that If a marriage, any marriage, is invalid how could it be the case adultery is involved? An invalid marriage is by definition not a marriage.

Fornication make you happier? Both are mortal sins.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes.

So you agree. There is some qualification on what Christ said.

I’m not understanding your point. In #214, it appeared to me you were saying that Christ’s admonition against judgment should apply to divorced and remarried couples. It seemed to me that you were saying we could not judge a remarried couple because Christ commanded us to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” And Ender’s point that such an admonition was only against rash judgments.

Is judging a divorced and remarried couple as being in an adulterous situation a rash judgment? It seemed you were saying it is. Is that what you were trying to say?

Because, it appears you are saying we cannot make a reasonable judgment about the adulterous state of a divorced and remarried couple, and you based it upon Matt 7:1. If that’s not what you were doing, then I’m sorry for the disconnect and the back and forth. If it is what you mean, then I disagree, and I think such an interpretation dangerous and leads to an absurd conclusion.

It has been my observation that on forums disputes often arise (we all know they do), and at some point it is better that someone take a step back and call a halt by saying, “Whoa, this is not necessary. Let’s cut it out.” That’s all I was trying to say, to not let things go downhill, or at least not wanting to be a part of it or wishing to offend anyone. Quite the contrary. So, okay. Let’s let that go.

No, I didn’t really mean that a person can’t make a reasonable judgment about a divorced and married couple but that they shouldn’t and that it is wrong to do so. In cases, that adultery occurs could be objective, e.g., when one very well knows for a fact that it is occurring. A confessor, for instance, might be told this fact. So might others know this fact for lots of reasons. It then is knowledge and objective. In other instances, it might be a subjective opinion. But in either case, what I think Matthew 7.1 means is that one should not make judgments, primarily moral judgments, concerning one’s neighbor. Judgments are more than logical conclusions. Those are factual. Judgment is just what it says. Judges judge, the conclusions of science are facts. This differs meaningfully. Making the judgment that an act is morally wrong, sinful or evil is not for us to make.

Matthew 7.2: “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

I don’t believe this teaching should be ignored. But there is more:

Matthew 7.3: “Any why seest thou the mote that is in they brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?” As the verses continue, verse 7.5 begins this way: “Thou hypocrite…”

This is essentially the same teaching of John 8:7, which says, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast first cast a stone at her.”

And there is even more to consider:

John 5:26-27: “For the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself: and he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man.”

The power to judge was given by the Father to the Son. It was not given to us. It is for Christ. This is why Christ tells us not to do it. This is clear for me.

 

[Thomas_White]

Again, the church does not limit herself solely to the words of Scripture. Here is her understanding of that passage:*Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Mt. 5. Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart. *(Aquinas ST II-II 60, 2-1)
Ender

That is the understaning of St. Thomas Aquinas. Though his theology has been very influential in the Church, his understanding it is not necessarily the Church’s understanding. Several recent Pope’s have preferred the writings of St. Augustine. And there are many differences between the two theologians.

Here is a quote from St. Augustine concerning Matthew 7.1:

“Concerning those things then, that are known to God, unknown to us, we judge our neighbors at our peril. Of this the Lord has said, *Judge not.” –Sermon 202 de Tempore, St. Augustine

What I actually said in my comment #214 is as follows:

“That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment are in the state of mortal sin as the result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.”

I cannot see how my comment disagrees with what, in fact, St. Augustine said about Matthew 7.1. To “presume” means to assume for a fact what is “unknown to us”. But surely, whether a person in this situation is in moral sin or not is known to God and not by us.

Beyond that, even if we do know something it is one thing, but to judge it is something quite different. (This observation does not apply to what I said in my comment #214, i.e., when we do not know something.)

The root of the Latin word that is translated as “rash” in the quotation you provided from St. Thomas Aquinas means “to hurt, injure.” St. Augustine added “envious” and “detractive”. I am quite sure that judging that one’s neighbor is committing adultery, though unknown to us and a presumption, would be to judge in peril as provided in Matthew 7.1.

I would also note that the Latin word “iudex”, translated as “judge”, also has the meaning “juror” and “critic”. To know something and to judge or be critical of it are not the same thing.

 

[Ender]

I would think the judgment that they neighbor is committing adultery would qualify.

Not necessarily. If my neighbor lives alone but is frequently seen dating women it would be a rash judgment to assume they are having sex. If, however, the woman moves in with him, the presumption is entirely different. His behavior is scandalous precisely because of what it naturally implies, and one does not need photographic confirmation to condemn it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It may be grave matter, but they might not have fulfilled the second and third requirements for a sin to be mortal. You have to have full knowledge and deliberate consent for a sin to be mortal. You don;t know if they had such.

The degree to which they will be held accountable for their sins is not ours to know. The gravity of the sin, however, is, and “obstinate persistence in manifest, grave sin” is the condition that disallows one from receiving communion. As you recognize, it is a grave sin, it is publicly known, and it persists over time. The conditions are therefore met.

Ender