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

[pnewton]

I think Pope Francis is quite aware of that and is trying to bring the man-made rules of the Church in synch with the Gospel. Bless the man.

I believe there is some truth here, with the caveat that all the “man-made” rules are in sync with the Gospel. In other words, discipline is by its very nature pastoral, or should be, as opposed to being two things that oppose each other. Just as St. John Paul eliminated all anathemas, so here we have the Holy Father drawing a line in this one area.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am almost positive that is not the translation of the word used. Here is one lexicon entry:

biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

I hate to bring it up, but if you’re using Protestant concordances then you’re dealing with at best a 500 year old interpretation.

Are you really trying to tell me that it took 1500 years for Christians to do a face palm and “of COURSE if your hubby or wife cheated on you, you can divorce and remarry, no worry, Jesus said so”. . .

Then how come in the records we have, whether it was a king, or a nobleman, or Piers Plowman and Wat Tyler, if a wife was unchaste she was either executed (in which case a subsequent marriage was fine because the man was now a widower) or else imprisoned or ‘sent to a convent’ and a decree of nullity was sought (not for the adultery, but rather for things like too near relationship to the husband, or had not fully consented, or had a 'previous relationship BEFORE the marriage and therefore COULD NOT LAWFULLY MARRY, instead of saying, “looky, she cheated, we’re done, I’m outta here with wife #2?”)

If ‘fornication’ or ‘adultery’ by one of the spouses were grounds for divorce and subsequent remarriage by the injured party, why don’t we find consistent records of this being engaged in by Christians? Instead, we see that the ‘injured party’ could NOT simply ‘divorce’ and remarry due to the ‘unchastity’ of the other spouse.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And I found this right here on CA which states what I’m saying, but more clearly (thank God).

Question: I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn’t Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 “except for unchastity”? Answer

What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.
The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, “Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is “porneia,” which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word “moicheia,” which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.
The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just “living together,” then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.

 

[Thomas_White]

What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

Here is the way Matthew 19.9 appears in the Douay-Rheims version:

“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication and shall marry another shall committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” --Matthew 19.9, Douay-Rheims (emphasis added)

The Douay-Rheims version translates the word in question from the Latin Vulgate as ‘fornication’. As noted, the Kings James version does too. This word, which is ‘porneia’ in the Greek, means “unlawful sexual intercourse”. The Douay-Rheims translates this word as ‘fornication’. This is not a mistranslation. The Greek word ‘Moicheia’ translates as ‘adultery’. Note that the words ‘fornication’ and ‘adultery’ are both used in the same Biblical verse.

Obviously, an unfaithful married woman would commit adultery and not fornication. There are a number of interpretations of what this verse means. I tend to think one of the more plausible interpretations is that under Jewish law a man who learned after his marriage that his wife had been unchaste prior to the marriage had the option to “put her away”, which meant to end the marriage (perhaps as unlawful from its beginning). Another interpretation was that this referred to a marriage that was incestuous. Under Jewish law, such a marriage was consided invalid.

 

[Elizium23]

The word you’re discussing is πορνεία (“porneίa”) and its meaning has been hotly contested. If you want an authentic Catholic analysis of what the word means in its context of Mt 19:9, then you would do well to purchase the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ, edited by Rev. Robert Dodaro, OSA. This is known as the “Five Cardinals” book, as the principal contributors are Princes of the Catholic Church. It is promoted by Father John Zuhlsdorf and will be a seminal book for the Synod Fathers in October.

 

[Suudy]

The word you’re discussing is πορνεία (“porneίa”) and its meaning has been hotly contested. If you want an authentic Catholic analysis of what the word means in its context of Mt 19:9, then you would do well to purchase the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ, edited by Rev. Robert Dodaro, OSA. This is known as the “Five Cardinals” book, as the principal contributors are Princes of the Catholic Church. It is promoted by Father John Zuhlsdorf and will be a seminal book for the Synod Fathers in October.

There’s a link to a promo PDF with some (detailed) overview of this topic on the Ignatius website.

ignatius.com/promotions/remaining_in_the_truth/remaining_in_truth_preview.pdf

 

[pnewton]

I hate to bring it up, but if you’re using Protestant concordances then you’re dealing with at best a 500 year old interpretation.

I just posted a convenient one. The meaning of the word has not been in much dispute. It is the interpretation, not the translation, one needs to look for to the Church. If you look at that answer you post, note it says."What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. " Interpretation and translation are entirely separate matters. I was only referring to the literal meaning of the word, not what it means.

I guess this shows that as much as dynamic translation is discouraged by the Church in the liturgy (at least at the present), that some still find such interpretative translating useful.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here is the way Matthew 19.9 appears in the Douay-Rheims version:

“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication and shall marry another shall committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” --Matthew 19.9, Douay-Rheims (emphasis added)

The Douay-Rheims version translates the word in question from the Latin Vulgate as ‘fornication’. As noted, the Kings James version does too. This word, which is ‘porneia’ in the Greek, means “unlawful sexual intercourse”. The Douay-Rheims translates this word as ‘fornication’. This is not a mistranslation. The Greek word ‘Moicheia’ translates as ‘adultery’. Note that the words ‘fornication’ and ‘adultery’ are both used in the same Biblical verse.

Obviously, an unfaithful married woman would commit adultery and not fornication. There are a number of interpretations of what this verse means. I tend to think one of the more plausible interpretations is that under Jewish law a man who learned after his marriage that his wife had been unchaste prior to the marriage had the option to “put her away”, which meant to end the marriage (perhaps as unlawful from its beginning). Another interpretation was that this referred to a marriage that was incestuous. Under Jewish law, such a marriage was consided invalid.

But the thing is, and I can’t emphasize this enough, the fornication and adultery of a spouse which occurs at some point in a marriage after the vows are taken is NOT something that can be cause to put away said spouse, divorce, and remarry. That is a modern protestant interpretation.

The fact is, a person who is not validly married in the eyes of God (and this has nothing to do with secular legality) is committing fornication or adultery simply by claiming to be married and engaging in sex. If for example two unmarried adults (Catholic) could be married in the Church but choose instead to be married on a sunset beach, they are legally married but in the eyes of the Church they are fornicating. And because this is a ‘defect of form’ the ‘legal’ marriage may indeed be put aside (legal divorce) and assuming the proper defect of form papers are accepted, the person is then free to marry in the Church. They are also perfectly free to have the marriage convalidated and thus be married in the eyes of God as well as the State.

Now, if a person who was married to one person and was ‘cheated on’, that is a tragedy for sure (been there, had it done to me, so don’t think I’m not sympathetic), but that didn’t mean I was free to go out and marry again after that divorce. No, I petitioned for and was granted a decree of nullity, NOT on the basis of the cheating, and thus if I ever wanted to marry again, I could. Without the decree of nullity, there is no way that I could bleat, “I was cheated on, I deserve to be happy without attempting a decree of nullity, all I need to do is cite '‘except for adultery/fornication’ and the Church has to accept the second marriage as valid.”

We need to make this crystal clear because too many people simply assume that ‘fornication/adultery/unchastity’ etc. refer to behavior by a spouse at some point after the marriage vows are taken, and that this ‘breaks the bond’. It does not. The only way the above ‘break the bond’ so to speak is if the fornication/adultery etc. exists **from the start of the marriage onward. **

 

[pnewton]

There’s a link to a promo PDF with some (detailed) overview of this topic on the Ignatius website.

ignatius.com/promotions/remaining_in_the_truth/remaining_in_truth_preview.pdf

Thank you for the link.

It looks like this is a refutation from these Cardinals of Cardinal Kaspar.

I guess I am fine with waiting for this synod to discuss this issue. Here though, we have a clarification, one of substance, by the Holy Father that will set one more boundary on the outcome.

 

[Tomdstone]

There’s a link to a promo PDF with some (detailed) overview of this topic on the Ignatius website.

ignatius.com/promotions/remaining_in_the_truth/remaining_in_truth_preview.pdf

The link gives only the first article and does not give the remaining articles which touch upon the teaching of the Orthodox church and the treatment of divorce and remarriage in the early church. Where do we find these?
The first article does say that in 883 under Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople
an ecclesiastical legal code incorporated a long list of reasons for permitting divorce and remarriage. and I don’t see where Rome objected to this list?

 

[Thomas_White]

The Douay-Rheims version of the Bible was translated in 1582 and was a translation of the Fourth Century Vulgate. The purpose of the Douay-Rheims English translation was to uphold Catholic tradition in response to the Reformation, which was by then dominating English religious debate. Biblical scholars often mention that the KJV relied heavily on the Douay-Rheims translation. It is not the translation of the Greek word ‘porneia’ but its interpretation that is contested. As noted, the word appears as ‘fornication’ in the Latin of the Vulgate in the Fourth Century A.D. This was much closer in time to the historical meaning of the verse.

It is a simple fact that there are various interpretations of the verse. I have no ‘dog in the fight’, so to speak, nor do I care for either liberal or conservative interpretations of Scripture (or of doctrine or Church teaching). These are what they are, and if the language is plain and clear, then so be it. We all know the Church does not recognize civil divorce but also that it does recognize that some marriages, for various reasons, were never valid. But I will leave the interpretation of Matthew 19:9 to the experts and admit I don’t know what the phrase means.

With respect to the synod and the question of divorced and remarried Cathoilcs receiving communion, I do not trust judgmental opinions, those judgments that have their own ‘hardness of heart’. Matthew 7.1 has something to say about that too. At the core of the Gospel is mercy, and in my opinion it is with Catholic mercy and forgiveness that the issue should be examined by the synod.

 

[Midwest88]

Why doesn’t he just write out a “The Catholic Church is sorry for hurting your feelings” ecclesiastical. Heck, go on an apologetic tour like Obama did.

 

[Suudy]

The link gives only the first article and does not give the remaining articles which touch upon the teaching of the Orthodox church and the treatment of divorce and remarriage in the early church. Where do we find these?
The first article does say that in 883 under Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople
an ecclesiastical legal code incorporated a long list of reasons for permitting divorce and remarriage. and I don’t see where Rome objected to this list?

Just to be clear, this is promotional material. You will find the remaining articles and likely considerable detail on the areas in which you are interested through a full copy of the book. Elizium23’s link is to the full book and an e-store with an e-book download for only about $12.

 

[ARSpade]

You know, every time there’s a thread like this I’m struck by the legalism of the anti-marriage side, hence why these threads are so long. You can really see that what comes around goes around. You can see it in the Kasper proposals about spending a bunch of time in penance, and Bishop’s approvals, and all that. You can also see the simplicity of Christ’s words (and simple things are easy).

The Pharisees come to Christ and basically say (to God), “Hey, look at all these man made rules we created to be able to get out of our marriage bond. Aren’t they neat?”
And Christ says, “Nope”.

And now we have modern Church authorities trying to come up with all these man made rules to allow people to get out of their marriage bond. When Christ’s answer was so utterly simple.

A lot of ink is getting spilled by a lot of people over what should be the simplest thing if people actually wanted to follow the words of Christ.

 

[Ender]

With respect to the synod and the question of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion, I do not trust judgmental opinions, those judgments that have their own ‘hardness of heart’. Matthew 7.1 has something to say about that too.

Wait…is this a change to your earlier position?I am very clearly am not suggesting that divorced and remarried Catholics whose marriages were sacramental should be permitted to take communion. I know that cannot happen without a change in doctrine, and I have also said I am “virtually certain” that will not occur. (Post #92)
Are you now suggesting you would be open to the doctrinal changes necessary to allow this?

At the core of the Gospel is mercy, and in my opinion it is with Catholic mercy and forgiveness that the issue should be examined by the synod.

It appears what you are suggesting is that the merciful approach is to allow everyone to receive communion whether or not they have been absolved of grave sins, indeed, without even having to repent of those sins. I don’t think that’s an accurate understanding of the nature of mercy. Mercy is not something given to us regardless of our actions; we can only receive it by changing ourselves to be worthy of it.*However, in the logic of the covenant, which is the heart of the whole economy of salvation, this gift does not reach us without our **acceptance and response. ***

• In the light of this principle, it is not difficult to understand how reconciliation with God, although based on a free and abundant offer of mercy, at the same time implies an arduous process which involves the individual’s personal effort and the Church’s sacramental work. *(JPII)

*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ. *(JPII)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Wait…is this a change to your earlier position?I am very clearly am not suggesting that divorced and remarried Catholics whose marriages were sacramental should be permitted to take communion. I know that cannot happen without a change in doctrine, and I have also said I am “virtually certain” that will not occur. (Post #92)
Are you now suggesting you would be open to the doctrinal changes necessary to allow this?
It appears what you are suggesting is that the merciful approach is to allow everyone to receive communion whether or not they have been absolved of grave sins, indeed, without even having to repent of those sins. I don’t think that’s an accurate understanding of the nature of mercy. Mercy is not something given to us regardless of our actions; we can only receive it by changing ourselves to be worthy of it.*However, in the logic of the covenant, which is the heart of the whole economy of salvation, this gift does not reach us without our **acceptance and response. ***

• In the light of this principle, it is not difficult to understand how reconciliation with God, although based on a free and abundant offer of mercy, at the same time implies an arduous process which involves the individual’s personal effort* and the Church’s sacramental work. (JPII)

*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ. *(JPII)
Ender

No, my comment was not at all a change. In posts #85 and #92, I stated I did not think that Pope Francis would change doctrine. As a result, I believe that the question will become what could be done for divorced and remarried Catholics that have not obtained an annulment. What I believe is important is to look to the person with mercy and forgiveness, for this concerns the eternal salvation of souls. We ought to tred carefully in our judgments of others.

Beyond question, many Catholics in this situation never had a sacramental marriage in the first place. Equally clear is that they are often judged as though they did, and this is where Matthew 7.1 would apply. Mercy and forgiveness are relevant if for nothing else the error they perhaps made by entering into a marriage that failed. For Catholic marriages that were sacramental, I see nothing that could be done short of what the CCC says must first be done if they are ever to receive communion. In my view, this question is settled. And I made this clear in the comment you quote.

Since the question does involve the eternal salvation of souls, what I am saying is that the Church ought to reach out to those Catholics who are, without an annulment, divorced and remarried and do what could be done for them. Without doubt, quite significant numbers of these Catholics never had a sacramental marriage. That the marriage ended in divorce is itself an indicator. It is no secret than many divorced and remarried Catholics do not wish to endure the current marriage tribunal process and view it as personally intrusive, lengthy and expensive. I might add that Matthew 7.1 is not irrelevant here either, and I know there are those in this situation that will not participate in the tribunal process for this very reason. Others do not want to reopen old wounds and again experience the deep pain of a failed marriage. The process ought to involve mercy.

In my last comment, I stated that I did not care for political interpretations of Scripture, doctrine or the teachings of Christ. That the mentioning of mercy and forgiveness could result in a comment comparing Pope Francis to a political leader with whom one disagrees is of course concerning. Mercy and forgiveness were at the heart of the teaching of the historical Jesus on the Earth. And, to be honest, I did realize the mere mentioning of mercy and forgiveness might prove upsetting for some. But it is so.

 

[pnewton]

You know, every time there’s a thread like this I’m struck by the legalism of the anti-marriage side, hence why these threads are so long.

I would say there is legalism on the other side as well, perhaps more. You spoke of the simple answer of Christ. I would note that this is not the only answer He ever gave to this question. The very Mosaic Law, given by the same God that taught on Earth, did allow for the hardness of human heart.

So the question I ask, is the human heart now no longer hard?

 

[zz912]

I would say there is legalism on the other side as well, perhaps more. You spoke of the simple answer of Christ. I would note that this is not the only answer He ever gave to this question. The very Mosaic Law, given by the same God that taught on Earth, did allow for the hardness of human heart.

So the question I ask, is the human heart now no longer hard?

Of course it is, but that doesn’t matter. Jesus ended those exceptions because He raised marriage up to a sacrament. So even with our hardness of hearts, Catholics have the sacrament to give the graces needed to fulfill our vows.

So Jesus has voided the exceptions and they are also no longer needed.

 

[ARSpade]

I would say there is legalism on the other side as well, perhaps more. You spoke of the simple answer of Christ. I would note that this is not the only answer He ever gave to this question. The very Mosaic Law, given by the same God that taught on Earth, did allow for the hardness of human heart.

So the question I ask, is the human heart now no longer hard?

Jesus doesn’t care if they are.

Read the relevant Gospel reading. Right after Jesus says that the apostles take the same line you do basically saying, “Woah, Jesus, that’s a really hard thing to do. It would be better to just never marry because of how hard that is.”

And Jesus basically says, “Deal with it”

 

[Elizium23]

Beyond question, many Catholics in this situation never had a sacramental marriage in the first place. Equally clear is that they are often judged as though they did, and this is where Matthew 7.1 would apply. Mercy and forgiveness are relevant if for nothing else the error they perhaps made by entering into a marriage that failed. For Catholic marriages that were sacramental, I see nothing that could be done short of what the CCC says must first be done if they are ever to receive communion. In my view, this question is settled. And I made this clear in the comment you quote.

Since the question does involve the eternal salvation of souls, what I am saying is that the Church ought to reach out to those Catholics who are, without an annulment, divorced and remarried and do what could be done for them. Without doubt, quite significant numbers of these Catholics never had a sacramental marriage. That the marriage ended in divorce is itself an indicator. It is no secret than many divorced and remarried Catholics do not wish to endure the current marriage tribunal process and view it as personally intrusive, lengthy and expensive. I might add that Matthew 7.1 is not irrelevant here either, and I know there are those in this situation that will not participate in the tribunal process for this very reason. Others do not want to reopen old wounds and again experience the deep pain of a failed marriage. The process ought to involve mercy.

In my last comment, I stated that I did not care for political interpretations of Scripture, doctrine or the teachings of Christ. That the mentioning of mercy and forgiveness could result in a comment comparing Pope Francis to a political leader with whom one disagrees is of course concerning. Mercy and forgiveness were at the heart of the teaching of the historical Jesus on the Earth. And, to be honest, I did realize the mere mentioning of mercy and forgiveness might prove upsetting for some. But it is so.

The question is not whether a marriage was sacramental, but whether it was valid. Any valid marriage, whether or not it was sacramental, needs investigation prior to a new attempt at marriage. Some natural marriages can be dissolved rather than declared null, but then again, so can an unconsummated sacramental marriage.