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

[Thomas_White]

I would think that this must happen often, as some couples receive the decree of nullity (meaning these marriages were always invalid) and then have their current marriage con-validated, meaning that it is possible that the current marriage is valid.

While these facts are known only in hindsight, they remain facts, and their for objective. Am I missing something here?

If not, then we can see that what we something think is Church doctrine on marriage, re-marriage and communion, might be just the best was to incorporate certain doctrinal facts into difficult to untangle situations. Some changes then might be possible without violating any defined doctrine.

I don’t think your comment misses anything. And there wouldn’t have to be a change in doctrine to make some changes.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

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.

This is something that is not a matter of doctrine, but of practice. It seems to be contradicted by this: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

Assuming a marriage is valid is to assume the best and can hardly be considered a rash judgment.

I would think that while it might be practical, it is not required that the Church assumes that mortal sin exists until a tribunal is shown it does not.

I really struggle to understand how such a straightforward assertion ("*Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery…") *can be emptied of its meaning. If that statement doesn’t mean what it says then why would we believe any other statement is meaningful either?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes, and that all divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in a state of mortal sin is also an invalid conclusion if even one such person is not.

True, but that wasn’t asserted. Catholics in that irregular situation are barred from the public reception of communion whether they commit adultery or not. This is because of the scandal involved.

Christ was speaking “in general” in John 5:26-27?

I was referring to Christ’s statement on adultery (Lk 16:18).

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself: And he hath given to the Son to do judgment because he is the Son of man.”

This is speaking in general? It is utterly specific and concerns only the Father and the Son. There is no generality in these two verses to ignore, and I cannot understand why it would be thought they apply to us.

You speak as if all judgment is denied us; that only God may judge anything. This is clearly not what the church teaches.

That Matthew 7.1 says what it says–“Judge not”–is inaccurate? It seems to me that you are arguing that these words of Christ either do not mean anything at all or that the Father has given to us, as he has to the Son, the power to judge.

The problem is that you lump all judgments together and imply that we may not make any judgment at all, but this is something impossible to believe. You have judged my words to be inaccurate, but if we are not to judge, how can you dispute my comments? One of the principle aspects of this topic is annulments, but isn’t there a judgment made about the validity of the marriage? Do not juries sit in judgment about the guilt or innocence of the accused? It is not all judgments that we are forbidden to make, but only those (as Aquinas explained) about things we cannot know. It is unconvincing to apply your interpretation to Mt 7:1 when the church has so clearly provided us with a very different explanation.

CCC 1807 is speaking of impartiality and fairness, not moral judgments.

Yes, and you need to be more precise in how you use the term. We may judge the morality of an action. What we may not judge is the intention behind the action or the culpability of the person who took it.

What 1861 means (and says) is that we can judge that committing adultery is a grave sin (an intangible that has no soul) but we are to “entrust judgement of persons” to God. There is a reason why this distinction is made, and we cannot do both. It means that we can judge that adultery is wrong but should not judge that a person has committed adultery. There is much we could not know.

You use “judge” here in the sense of “assume.” Clearly, as has been pointed out before, we are to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume the worst if a more favorable interpretation is reasonable. This does not mean, however, that we should close our eyes to obvious indications of wrongdoing.

This is clear and means “Judge not”, as Christ means it in Matthew 7.1. We can correct others without judging.

I think your definition of “judging” shifts around with how you use the word. We cannot correct others without judging their actions to be wrong. This does not mean we have judged their intentions to be wrong or to have judged them to be sinners.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

True, but that wasn’t asserted. Catholics in that irregular situation are barred from the public reception of communion whether they commit adultery or not. This is because of the scandal involved.
I was referring to Christ’s statement on adultery (Lk 16:18).
You speak as if all judgment is denied us; that only God may judge anything. This is clearly not what the church teaches.
The problem is that you lump all judgments together and imply that we may not make any judgment at all, but this is something impossible to believe. You have judged my words to be inaccurate, but if we are not to judge, how can you dispute my comments? One of the principle aspects of this topic is annulments, but isn’t there a judgment made about the validity of the marriage? Do not juries sit in judgment about the guilt or innocence of the accused? It is not all judgments that we are forbidden to make, but only those (as Aquinas explained) about things we cannot know. It is unconvincing to apply your interpretation to Mt 7:1 when the church has so clearly provided us with a very different explanation.
Yes, and you need to be more precise in how you use the term. We may judge the morality of an action. What we may not judge is the intention behind the action or the culpability of the person who took it.
You use “judge” here in the sense of “assume.” Clearly, as has been pointed out before, we are to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume the worst if a more favorable interpretation is reasonable. This does not mean, however, that we should close our eyes to obvious indications of wrongdoing.
I think your definition of “judging” shifts around with how you use the word. We cannot correct others without judging their actions to be wrong. This does not mean we have judged their intentions to be wrong or to have judged them to be sinners.

Ender

It seems it means nothing that I have explained again and again that there is a difference between the conclusions of simple reason and the judgment Christ speaks of in Matthew 7.1. To say that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is by that objective fact alone committing adultery and therefore is in the state of mortal sin and not permitted to receive communion is a judgement, plain and simple. If we have not, as you say, judged such a person’s intentions to be wrong or judged them as sinners, then why would they not be permitted to receive communion? That they are not so permitted is the result of a judgement contrary to the teaching of Matthew 7.1. This simply cannot be logically refuted.

Scandal is a two-way street. To say that such a remarried Catholic is in the Objective state of mortal sin is only a theory or assumption. It is an hypothesis that cannot be proven valid by logic. It is a judgment of the person. There is the subjective factor of the subject’s own understanding and intentions. To judge a person differs from the judgement of a concept, an idea that has no soul, and is why the CCC makes this distinction. To judge the “subject”, i.e., the person, is what Matthew 7.1 says we are not to do. I am sorry if this cannot be understood.

1862 of the CCC (which you did not provide when you quoted 1861), provides the following:

“One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent.”

How, for instance, are we to know that this is not the case when we both presume and conclude that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annulment is by that objective fact alone in the subjective state of mortal sin?

“Primarily concerned with divine history, [Jesus] never forgets that he was sent first of all to ‘the lost sheep of the House of Israel’ (Matt. 15:24). His tidings especially concern those bound by the covenant of Sinai, race whom the prophets have taught to expect the coming of the Messiah to the chosen people under the dominion of regent and official.” –The Lord, Romano Guardini, pg. 112.

I would suggest that Matthew 5:32-37 should be so understood. What does verse 5:37 mean?

 

[Tomdstone]

I really struggle to understand how such a straightforward assertion ("*Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery…") *can be emptied of its meaning. If that statement doesn’t mean what it says then why would we believe any other statement is meaningful either?

Because perhaps the person was not his wife in the first place because of an invalid marriage, or perhaps because since the marriage died, the person ceased to be his wife.

 

[Thomas_White]

Because perhaps the person was not his wife in the first place because of an invalid marriage, or perhaps because since the marriage died, the person ceased to be his wife.

Yes, and there is judgment to conclude otherwise… What Matthew 5:32 actually says is as follows: “…whosoever shall put away his wife…maketh her to commit adultery.” Does this mean that if a man “puts away” his wife, she is by that fact alone guilty of adultery? The word “maketh” cannot reasonably be ignored. It clearly implies an act unless it means the wife is just simply an adulteress (that’s it, simple as that) because her husband put her away.

The verse doesn’t even mention remarriage. Adultery is a separate act (if it occurs) that in accordance with this scriptural teaching the husband “maketh her to commit.” That it is said the husband “maketh her to commit adultery” is itself noteworthy concerning whom would be at fault.

Not in Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; or Luke 16:18 does it say that the one “put away” or divorced commits adultery.

 

[Ender]

To say that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annulment is by that objective fact alone committing adultery and therefore is in the state of mortal sin and not permitted to receive communion is a judgement, plain and simple.

Yes. More to the point, it is the judgment the church makes. Isn’t that what Christ said?

If we have not, as you say, judged such a person’s intentions to be wrong or judged them as sinners, then why would they not be permitted to receive communion?

Because of the scandal involved, among other things.

That they are not so permitted is the result of a judgement contrary to the teaching of Matthew 7.1. This simply cannot be logically refuted.

That the church makes this judgment would seem to indicate that it is not contrary to Mt 7:1.

To say that such a remarried Catholic is in the Objective state of mortal sin is only a theory or assumption. It is an hypothesis that cannot be proven valid by logic. It is a judgment of the person.

The presumption the church makes is that a marriage is valid unless and until it is formally declared invalid by the church herself. Given that, any second marriage contracted without an annulment is no more a valid union than two people simply living together. These arrangements give the appearance of grave sin. It is irrational to assume that people who have made a public show of sinning are in fact not sinning in private.

To judge the “subject”, i.e., the person, is what Matthew 7.1 says we are not to do. I am sorry if this cannot be understood.

We are not told not to judge; we are told to judge “in righteousness”.

1862 of the CCC (which you did not provide when you quoted 1861), provides the following:

“One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent.”

It is conceivable that some Catholics might be unaware that not getting married by a Catholic priest and not being married in the Catholic church are good indicators that they ought not receive communion. Once the issue is raised, however, the lack of “full knowledge” no longer provides cover for their actions. They might be happily receiving communion now in their ignorance, but once they become aware of the problem, CCC 1862 no longer applies.

How, for instance, are we to know that this is not the case when we both presume and conclude that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annulment is by that objective fact alone in the subjective state of mortal sin?

If a priest is aware that a person has remarried without an annulment he is obligated to speak to that person and inform him he is not to receive communion publicly, and may only receive it privately if he affirms that he is not having sexual relations. If we are aware of such a situation we have an obligation to warn the individual that he may be committing a grave sin by receiving. It would be wrong of us to assume that no sin is being committed because we don’t know for certain that it is. As JPII said, “The Gospel tells us to correct others…”.

I would suggest that Matthew 5:32-37 should be so understood. What does verse 5:37 mean?

I don’t see any connection between 5:32 and 5:33-37 nor would I expect to find anything that contradicted or mitigated what 5:32 plainly means.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Because perhaps the person was not his wife in the first place because of an invalid marriage…

The marriage is presumed valid until explicitly declared invalid by the church.

… or perhaps because since the marriage died, the person ceased to be his wife.

People die, marriages do not. If the marriage was initially valid it cannot become invalid at some later date.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes, and there is judgment to conclude otherwise… What Matthew 5:32 actually says is as follows: “…whosoever shall put away his wife…maketh her to commit adultery.” Does this mean …

What it means is what the church says it means, and the church has been very clear about this.In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid,* under no circumstances** can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception. *(Cdl. Ratzinger - *CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL)
*Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

What it means is what the church says it means, and the church has been very clear about this.In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid,* under no circumstances*** can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception. (Cdl. Ratzinger - *CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL)
*Ender

Catholicism is what it is today as the result of a 2,000 year process. If the Church had not evolved during this long period, it might not exist today and might not even have survived the Roman Empire. To believe that the teachings of today are permanently fixed and always were is a conservative view. But if the Church is static and the process of change does not continue until the end of time and the full revelation, the Church will wither and die.

There are many teachings that will continue to evolve if the Church is to flourish. History confirms it. Many changes have been corrections of erroneous interpretations. Our world is the temporal world and necessarily a Becoming. It is a process. It is not Absolute. To attempt to render the teachings of the Church static is not a good thing if the Church is to prevail. It would eventually become lost to history, but history also suggests this will not happen.

To look backward and assume the teachings of today are what they always were is simply not the historical fact. We debated this topic earlier, and it is clear your position is not going to change. Nevertheless, Matthew 5:32 and the related verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke say what they say. They are scripture and the words of Christ. Where in scripture did Christ ever speak loosely? What is there to interpret in these verses? To whatever extent they have been interpreted only indicates that this process of interpretation can continue. It cannot be wrong to look to the words of Christ for this understanding.

 

[Ender]

To believe that the teachings of today are permanently fixed and always were is a conservative view.

To believe that morality changes over time is to reject what the church teaches. Evolution is one thing; reversal is quite another.

But if the Church is static and the process of change does not continue until the end of time and the full revelation, the Church will wither and die.

I think the Protestant churches are demonstrating the inevitable end of those churches who teach today the opposite of what they taught yesterday. If morality is fixed, so should be the church’s teaching.

Many changes have been corrections of erroneous interpretations.

This is not as true as you appear to believe. There have been erroneous interpretations of some things, but there are a number of core teachings that have not changed in any significant way in the past and will not change in the future. Several of those are involved in this issue.

To attempt to render the teachings of the Church static is not a good thing if the Church is to prevail.

So you believe truth changes with time and place? What was true yesterday won’t necessarily be true tomorrow? If truth can change, why would I believe that what is taught today matters. After all, if it can change next year I might as well get ahead of the curve and believe what I want and expect the church to catch up.

It cannot be wrong to look to the words of Christ for this understanding.

It is only wrong if your understanding contradicts the one the church has set forth.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

To believe that morality changes over time is to reject what the church teaches. Evolution is one thing; reversal is quite another.
I think the Protestant churches are demonstrating the inevitable end of those churches who teach today the opposite of what they taught yesterday. If morality is fixed, so should be the church’s teaching.
This is not as true as you appear to believe. There have been erroneous interpretations of some things, but there are a number of core teachings that have not changed in any significant way in the past and will not change in the future. Several of those are involved in this issue.
So you believe truth changes with time and place? What was true yesterday won’t necessarily be true tomorrow? If truth can change, why would I believe that what is taught today matters. After all, if it can change next year I might as well get ahead of the curve and believe what I want and expect the church to catch up.
It is only wrong if your understanding contradicts the one the church has set forth.

Ender

Morality and truth do not change over time, but the place and time in which certain teachings were presented changes. Truth is Absolute; the temporal world is not. Of course there have been changes that were corrections, and two major instances where this occurred were the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Trent.

It is not truth that changes in time and place but rather that time and place change. There are many, many examples of this fact. When I was a youth, it was considered sinful to take either liquid or food after midnight if one planned to receive communion the next morning, and eating meat on Friday was also considered a sin. These are examples of things that the Church thought grave during a bygone era and later revised the teaching. Today they are not considered sinful at all. There are many other examples. Through the centuries there were instances where certain orthodox beliefs became heresy, then again orthodox, and then heresy again.

What I did say was that the temporal world is a Becoming, a process and not Absolute. I would add it exists in time. What I did not say is that truth and morality change or evolve. Peace.

 

[Elizium23]

Morality and truth do not change over time, but the place and time in which certain teachings were presented changes. Truth is Absolute; the temporal world is not. Of course there have been changes that were corrections, and two major instances where this occurred were the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Trent.

It is not truth that changes in time and place but rather that time and place change. There are many, many examples of this fact. When I was a youth, it was considered sinful to take either liquid or food after midnight if one planned to receive communion the next morning, and eating meat on Friday was also considered a sin. These are examples of things that the Church thought grave during a bygone era and later revised the teaching. Today they are not considered sinful at all. There are many other examples. Through the centuries there were instances where certain orthodox beliefs became heresy, then again orthodox, and then heresy again.

What I did say was that the temporal world is a Becoming, a process and not Absolute. I would add it exists in time. What I did not say is that truth and morality change or evolve. Peace.

You’ve entangled discipline with doctrine in your attempted explanation of how things change over time. Name ONE doctrine that has been orthodox, heresy, orthodox and heresy again. You haven’t.

 

[Thomas_White]

You’ve entangled discipline with doctrine in your attempted explanation of how things change over time. Name ONE doctrine that has been orthodox, heresy, orthodox and heresy again. You haven’t.

I haven’t entangled anything. For whatever reasons, you have been unable to support your position by reason and logic, ignored the many contradictions and fallacies noted in your comments and have finally resorted to a static perspective with respect to doctrine to defend what you were unable to defend by logic, reason, or historical fact.

Here is the verbatim quote of my actual comment: “To believe that the teachings of today are permanently fixed and always were is a conservative view.”

Here is your response: “To believe that morality changes over time is to reject what the church teaches.”

Who said anything about morality changing? I replied and gave several examples of teachings that have changed and said, “Morality and truth do not change over time, but the time and place where certain teachings were presented changes.”

Your reply was: “You’ve entangled discipline and doctrine in your attempted explanation of how things change over time.”

Who said anything about doctrine?

I say this with all due respect: I don’t understand the difficulty here, but it speaks for itself.

 

[Tomdstone]

You’ve entangled discipline with doctrine in your attempted explanation of how things change over time. Name ONE doctrine that has been orthodox, heresy, orthodox and heresy again. You haven’t.

There was a doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. then later on the doctrine stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son, and people such as Michael Cerularius were excommunicated because of their refusal to accept that change in teaching. However, later on, according to the creed of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Morality also changes over time as is seen from the fact that burning people alive at the stake is no longer considered to be a moral thing to do. Also, it is now taught that torture is not morally correct, whereas previously, torture, under certain limitations, was allowed during the Inquisition. Similarly with slavery.

 

[Thomas_White]

You’ve entangled discipline with doctrine in your attempted explanation of how things change over time. Name ONE doctrine that has been orthodox, heresy, orthodox and heresy again. You haven’t.

My sincere apologies for my prior reply (#291). I had been having a fairly long and detailed discussion with another person and got mixed up here, thinking that was to whom I was responding.

As for my original comment, it said that Church teaching has changed over time, or words to that effect. I don’t understand how this incontrovertible fact could not be acknowledged. I gave specific examples but could have mentioned Vatican II. The entire discussion has to be taken into account to understand my comment. The discussion concerned the teaching that divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment are not permitted to receive communion. And in the discussion I said several times that I agreed that doctrine should not be changed but the question could be addressed in some ways without changing doctrine.

This suddenly was turned around to mean I was suggesting doctrine could and should be changed in this instance and was entangling doctrine and discipline to try to prove the point. This is entirely incorrect.

 

[Thomas_White]

There was a doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. then later on the doctrine stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son, and people such as Michael Cerularius were excommunicated because of their refusal to accept that change in teaching. However, later on, according to the creed of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Morality also changes over time as is seen from the fact that burning people alive at the stake is no longer considered to be a moral thing to do. Also, it is now taught that torture is not morally correct, whereas previously, torture, under certain limitations, was allowed during the Inquisition. Similarly with slavery.

Yes, there has been change and this will surely continue. The concept that Church doctrine advances is supported by Die verbum, one of the principle documents of the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Ender]

As for my original comment, it said that Church teaching has changed over time, or words to that effect. I don’t understand how this incontrovertible fact could not be acknowledged.

The term “teaching” here makes the statement true, but it also makes the claim virtually meaningless. There is a range of teachings in the church from prudential judgments up to infallible declarations, and while it is true that change occurs in some categories it is equally true that it does not occur in them all. This is the point Elizium23 was making. A discipline, such as not eating after midnight before receiving communion, since it is set by the church can be changed by the church at her pleasure. Other teachings are set by Christ himself and the church has no authority whatever to change them.

In this case, while she cannot change the indissoluble nature of marriage, “*the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching.” *(Ratzinger) Those conditions may (within limits) change over time, even as the nature of marriage cannot.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes, there has been change and this will surely continue. The concept that Church doctrine advances is supported by Die verbum, one of the principle documents of the Second Vatican Council.

However…**A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started. **(Cardinal Newman) *

“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

To believe that morality changes over time is to reject what the church teaches. Evolution is one thing; reversal is quite another.
I think the Protestant churches are demonstrating the inevitable end of those churches who teach today the opposite of what they taught yesterday. If morality is fixed, so should be the church’s teaching.
This is not as true as you appear to believe. There have been erroneous interpretations of some things, but there are a number of core teachings that have not changed in any significant way in the past and will not change in the future. Several of those are involved in this issue.
So you believe truth changes with time and place? What was true yesterday won’t necessarily be true tomorrow? If truth can change, why would I believe that what is taught today matters. After all, if it can change next year I might as well get ahead of the curve and believe what I want and expect the church to catch up.
It is only wrong if your understanding contradicts the one the church has set forth.

Ender

Concerning the question of whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment could be permitted to receive communion, I had said that though I agreed that doctrine should not be changed to allow this practice, I did believe that changes could be made that would in ways help those Catholics without changing doctrine. But changing doctrine nevertheless became the focus of the discussion, apparently on the assumption that doctrine would have to be changed were any change to occur.

What I have said in response is hardly based on my personal belief alone:

"8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time…

“This tradition which comes from the apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”

–Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Die Verbum, Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965

I did not say that truth and morality can change. I hope the above helps to clarify what I have said and why I have said it.