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

[Thomas_White]

No it’s not. They are objectively living in adultery. Only if they have gone to Confession, confessed their sin, and are living as brother and sister would they not be mortal sin.

And how would you know this isn’t the case? What is objective is that they are married to each other, but that they are committing adultery is only a presumption. I have throughly explained my thinking about this and really don’t wish to continue to discuss it.

 

[Ender]

And why would St. Thomas Aquinas address this specific point around the year 1270 A.D, more than a thousand years after the time of the early Christians?

And JPII addressed this same issue over 700 years after Aquinas; is that supposed to mean something? I was pointing out the consistency of this teaching that has in fact come down to us largely unchanged since the creation of the church.

Neither I nor anyone I have quoted has said it is acceptable to take communion while in a state of mortal sin.

Then it should be clear that an adulterer cannot receive.*Mortal sin occurs in two ways in the act of free-will. First, when something evil is chosen; as man sins by choosing adultery, which is evil of itself. *(Aquinas, ST I 63, 4-1)

I would note that the question we were discussing concerned whether divorced and remarried Catholic should be permitted to receive communion and that in the year 2015 the question remains an issue among Catholics and is before the Synod of Bishops.

The fact that some Catholics, including some bishops, dislike the answer does not mean the question is unresolved. Those who have divorced and remarried will not be allowed to receive communion so long as they engage in sex.

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.

In order for this “presumption” to be wrong either Christ was mistaken in labeling it adultery, or the church is wrong in considering adultery a grave sin.

Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.

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

Ender

 

[Ender]

And how would you know this isn’t the case? What is objective is that they are married to each other, but that they are committing adultery is only a presumption. I have throughly explained my thinking about this and really don’t wish to continue to discuss it.

If you are saying it is only presumed that a divorced/remarried person is having sexual relations, this is true. In the case where they are not, they would in fact be allowed to receive communion because there is no sin. If the remarriage was public and the continence was known only to the priest, however, they would probably not be allowed to receive publicly because of the scandal involved. (Ignore the fact that many priests are apparently indifferent to this restriction.)

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

And JPII addressed this same issue over 700 years after Aquinas; is that supposed to mean something? I was pointing out the consistency of this teaching that has in fact come down to us largely unchanged since the creation of the church.
Then it should be clear that an adulterer cannot receive.*Mortal sin occurs in two ways in the act of free-will. First, when something evil is chosen; as man sins by choosing adultery, which is evil of itself. *(Aquinas, ST I 63, 4-1)
The fact that some Catholics, including some bishops, dislike the answer does not mean the question is unresolved. Those who have divorced and remarried will not be allowed to receive communion so long as they engage in sex.
In order for this “presumption” to be wrong either Christ was mistaken in labeling it adultery, or the church is wrong in considering adultery a grave sin.
It is not judgment itself that is forbidden but only rash judgment; clearly all judgments are not forbidden.

Ender

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

 

[Thomas_White]

If you are saying it is only presumed that a divorced/remarried person is having sexual relations, this is true.

Ender

Yes, it is exactly what I am saying. And I have said it over and over again during the course of this discussion. :banghead:

 

[Thomas_White]

And JPII addressed this same issue over 700 years after Aquinas; is that supposed to mean something? I was pointing out the consistency of this teaching that has in fact come down to us largely unchanged since the creation of the church.

Then it should be clear that an adulterer cannot receive.*Mortal sin occurs in two ways in the act of free-will. First, when something evil is chosen; as man sins by choosing adultery, which is evil of itself. *(Aquinas, ST I 63, 4-1)

The fact that some Catholics, including some bishops, dislike the answer does not mean the question is unresolved. Those who have divorced and remarried will not be allowed to receive communion so long as they engage in sex.

In order for this “presumption” to be wrong either Christ was mistaken in labeling it adultery, or the church is wrong in considering adultery a grave sin.

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

Ender

What might “largely unchanged” mean?

Neither I nor anyone I have quoted or mentioned has said that a person in the state of mortal sin ought to 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 mean the Bishop of Rome “dislikes the answer”, then I don’t even want to go where that might lead.

“But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery, and he that shall marry her committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:32

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?

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

I say the above with all due respect, but it is my understanding of these things.

 

[Suudy]

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

They why do we throw murders, rapists, thieves, etc. in prison (or worse)? Did the judge or jury see it happen? Do they know it happened? They presume the witnesses and evidence are reliable. They also presume to know the mind of the person committing the crime (i.e. that they intended to commit the crime). But a judgement is entered nonetheless.

If we interpreted Jesus’ words as you do, then there’d be no grounds to judge anyone for any behavior, since none of us can have perfect knowledge of what happened or of the transgressor’s mind like God can. But clearly this is an absurd conclusion.

Thus, the reasonable restriction to “Just not, that you may not be judged” is that the judgement not be unreasonable. Reasonable judgements are permissible, and that’s the same thing as avoiding rash judgements. And I don’t think it unreasonable to assume married people are engaged in sexual activity.

 

[Thomas_White]

They why do we throw murders, rapists, thieves, etc. in prison (or worse)? Did the judge or jury see it happen? Do they know it happened? They presume the witnesses and evidence are reliable. They also presume to know the mind of the person committing the crime (i.e. that they intended to commit the crime). But a judgement is entered nonetheless.

If we interpreted Jesus’ words as you do, then there’d be no grounds to judge anyone for any behavior, since none of us can have perfect knowledge of what happened or of the transgressor’s mind like God can. But clearly this is an absurd conclusion.

Thus, the reasonable restriction to “Just not, that you may not be judged” is that the judgement not be unreasonable. Reasonable judgements are permissible, and that’s the same thing as avoiding rash judgements. And I don’t think it unreasonable to assume married people are engaged in sexual activity.

What interpretation was that? But okay, this finally does it. I am not going to hold Religion Class on the CA forum. Or logic class either.

But really. An hypothesis is also the conclusion?

 

[Suudy]

What interpretation was that? But okay, that finally does it. I am not going to hold Religion Class on the CAS formum. Or logic class either.

We make judgements every single day. Judging whether someone is worthy to receive communion is synonymous to the judgement we make about whether someone is worthy to remain a free member of society. They are reasoned (i.e. not rash) judgements.

Why is this any different?

But really. An hypothesis is also the conclusion?

Eh? You think you are confused. What do you think the hypothesis is? And what’s the conclusion?

You said: “The word ‘rash’ is not in the verse nor in the verses that follow.”

The unstated premise is that when Jesus says “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” He is not talking about reasonable judgements people make everyday. For if He meant only God can make judgements about people, then only He can judge criminals, or other people’s behavior. But that’s clearly absurd. So His statement wasn’t an absolute. There had to be some unstated conditions on judgement.

My point is that the word ‘rash’ doesn’t need to be there, because it is implied, indeed even necessary. And your attention to the lack of the word ‘rash’ is pointless. The meaning is already there–it has to be! So your dismissal of Ender’s point about ‘rash judgment’ is invalid.

 

[pnewton]

No it’s not. They are objectively living in adultery. Only if they have gone to Confession, confessed their sin, and are living as brother and sister would they not be mortal sin.

And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally. (ST III, 80-4)
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.

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

We make judgements every single day. Judging whether someone is worthy to receive communion is synonymous to the judgement we make about whether someone is worthy to remain a free member of society. They are reasoned (i.e. not rash) judgements.

Why is this any different?

Eh? You think you are confused. What do you think the hypothesis is? And what’s the conclusion?

To conclude, if the hypothesis is “Judge not, that you may not be judged”, that the hypothesis is rash, absurd or unreasonable is not a logically valid argument.

And you do realize the words of Matthew 7.1 are the words of Christ, right?

 

[Thomas_White]

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

Ender

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

 

[Tomdstone]

To conclude, if the hypothesis is “Judge not, that you may not be judged”,…

Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse jury duty because of this.

 

[Suudy]

To conclude, if the hypothesis is “Judge not, that you may not be judged”, that the hypothesis is rash, absurd or unreasonable is not a logically valid argument.

Huh? Who said the hypothesis is rash? It was about whether or not Christ’s admonition against judgement was limited to rash judgement. Clearly it’s not a generic admonition. It is limited in scope, which was Ender’s point.

And you do realize the words of Matthew 7.1 are the words of Christ, right?

Thus my use of proper pronouns. So, yes. And that changes what about my argument?

 

[Thomas_White]

Huh? Who said the hypothesis is rash? It was about whether or not Christ’s admonition against judgement was limited to rash judgement. Clearly it’s not a generic admonition. It is limited in scope, which was Ender’s point.

Actually, you said it.

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.”

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.

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

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. 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.

 

[zz912]

And how would you know this isn’t the case? What is objective is that they are married to each other, but that they are committing adultery is only a presumption. I have throughly explained my thinking about this and really don’t wish to continue to discuss it.

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.

 

[zz912]

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.

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.

 

[zz912]

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

We’re called and commanded by Jesus and Scripture to use judgment about right and wrong, about holiness and sinfulness. We are commanded to rightly discern things and to judge the actions of our fellow man. How else would we be able to rebuke or correct those in sin if we did not judge their actions as sinful?

The warning to “judge not” is the judgment on another person’s eternal destiny. Jesus is the judge of our eternal reward or damnation, and we should never try to usurp that. But we are commanded by Him to judge actions.

 

[Phemie]

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.

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.