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

[Peebo]

Our priest gave a homily last night on the number of Catholics who tell him why certain people should be denied the Eucharist…his reply was that those people should worry about their own standing before God…it is only by the grace of God and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ that ANY of us (and he included himself) are made worthy to accept the Eucharist…in fact he equated those people to the pharisees…I think he is a tad peeved at some of the holier than thou Catholics in our parish…he is one of three new priests we have…all three of them seem to be in full support of Pope Francis…as I am also.

 

[Ender]

Here are four such citations. There are literally hundreds and more likely thousands more.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/vatican-bishops-pope-francis_n_4066234.html

Huffington Post interpretations of what the pope said are not citations of what the pope actually said. I am not interested in someone else’s interpretations; what matters is what the pope said, not what someone else says he said.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19830

This is better. Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri said that at the special session of the Synod, scheduled for October 2014, the subject would certainly be discussed “without any taboos.”
*
This does say the issue will be discussed. I already recognized this point. It does not say the pope called for it to be re-examined. Some bishops, particularly in German-speaking countries, have pressed for a change in the Church’s policy, which bans divorced and remarried Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. Both Pope Benedict XVI and, more recently, Pope Francis have hinted that while the Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage cannot change, it is possible that some couples could benefit from a new approach to the annulment of earlier marriages. *
A “new approach to the annulment of earlier marriages” is not about whether the ban on communion should be changed.

protectthepope.com/?p=8611

This one is a citation of the pope’s comments, so if we don’t find it here then I submit you won’t find it anywhere.With reference to the issue of giving communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they can’t…),* I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage.** And so it is a problem. But also – a parenthesis – the Orthodox have a different practice. They follow the theology of what they call oikonomia, and they give a second chance, they allow it. But I believe that this problem – and here I close the parenthesis – must be studied within the context of the pastoral care of marriage.*
So, does the statement that “I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage” mean “I believe we should re-examine the question of whether we should change this restriction”? He does not explicitly rule it out, but neither does he call for it to be re-opened as a separate issue. He is clearly concerned with ministering to those in irregular unions, and this restriction is obviously part of that conversation. What is not clear is that he has called for this restriction to be re-examined with an eye to changing it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Our priest gave a homily last night on the number of Catholics who tell him why certain people should be denied the Eucharist…his reply was that those people should worry about their own standing before God…it is only by the grace of God and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ that ANY of us (and he included himself) are made worthy to accept the Eucharist…in fact he equated those people to the pharisees…I think he is a tad peeved at some of the holier than thou Catholics in our parish…he is one of three new priests we have…all three of them seem to be in full support of Pope Francis…as I am also.

Given that it is the church herself who specifies the conditions where communion should be denied, if the Pharisees are those who accept the church’s teaching on this point, what do we call those who ignore it?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Our priest gave a homily last night on the number of Catholics who tell him why certain people should be denied the Eucharist…his reply was that those people should worry about their own standing before God…it is only by the grace of God and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ that ANY of us (and he included himself) are made worthy to accept the Eucharist…in fact he equated those people to the pharisees…I think he is a tad peeved at some of the holier than thou Catholics in our parish…he is one of three new priests we have…all three of them seem to be in full support of Pope Francis…as I am also.

Yes, and many understand this intuitively while others apparently cannot.

 

[Thomas_White]

With reference to the issue of giving communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they can’t…),** I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage.** [Pope Francis]

So, does the statement that “I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage” mean “I believe we should re-examine the question of whether we should change this restriction”?

Ender

Yes, of course it does. There are very obviously good reasons why Pope Francis will not publicly discuss a question that is before the Synod of Bishops. One should not fear the use of the power of simple reason that God gave to us. If one also does not trust the heart, there is the risk of becoming entangled in a web of futile thought that detracts from true spirituality.

 

[Lee_Fracker]

I have never even heard of such a thing. Every parish I’ve ever been to has been welcoming to all people. They want them to get their marriage situation straightened out, but they welcome them.

Unfortunately, I know of too many cases where divorced and remarried people were made to feel unwelcome because they were unable to receive an annulment and, sadly, left the Church. They have been told that they can’t receive communion and in some case even told they should abstain from sex until their marriage is “fixed” by means of getting the previous marriage(s) annulled. While such might seem logical to some, it is so unrealistic as to be impossible and absurd.

It is also quite true that when divorced and remarried parents leave the church, they take their children with them. Thank God Pope Francis sees the absurdity of allowing these losses to go on.

 

[zz912]

Unfortunately, I know of too many cases where divorced and remarried people were made to feel unwelcome because **they were unable to receive an annulment and, sadly, left the Church. They have been told that they can’t receive communion and in some case even told they should abstain from sex until their marriage is “fixed” by means of getting the previous marriage(s) annulled. ** While such might seem logical to some, it is so unrealistic as to be impossible and absurd.

It is also quite true that when divorced and remarried parents leave the church, they take their children with them. Thank God Pope Francis sees the absurdity of allowing these losses to go on.

You’re arguing two different things here that contradict each other.

And what a sad state of affairs that people claim to be unable to abstain from sex for even a brief period of time (or even attempt it). Seems like their focus is on demanding the Church and Christ accept their beliefs and conform to them instead of the other way around. Are we really going to believe that these people will conform themselves to the other teachings of the Church that can be much more difficult to abide by? Are they going to forgo contraception? Are they going to give to charity with their time, talent and treasure? Are they going to go to confession regularly, take up their cross daily, etc, etc etc?

 

[Lee_Fracker]

You’re arguing two different things here that contradict each other.

You are quite mistaken, zz912. I have not presented any arguments at all. I have only shared personal observations. If you are looking for arguments, I do know of a couple of Catholic theologians, if you are interested.

 

[ARSpade]

in fact he equated those people to the pharisees.

I always find this ironic, since the Pharisees supported divorce and went to Jesus with the question in the first place.

 

[Thomas_White]

Are we really going to believe that these people will conform themselves to the other teachings of the Church that can be much more difficult to abide by? Are they going to forgo contraception? Are they going to give to charity with their time, talent and treasure? Are they going to go to confession regularly, take up their cross daily, etc, etc etc?

There is no need for any Catholic to convince the judging “we” of whom you speak of anything concerning their spiritual lives. The “we” would do well to concern themselves with their own salvation.

 

[pnewton]

Our priest gave a homily last night on the number of Catholics who tell him why certain people should be denied the Eucharist…his reply was that those people should worry about their own standing before God…it is only by the grace of God and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ that ANY of us (and he included himself) are made worthy to accept the Eucharist…in fact he equated those people to the pharisees…I think he is a tad peeved at some of the holier than thou Catholics in our parish…he is one of three new priests we have…all three of them seem to be in full support of Pope Francis…as I am also.

Jesus spoke about divorce, but he also spoke about picking the specks out of others’ eyes. I always wonder when I see all the emotion in discussions about divorce and homosexuality, how many pontificating dealt with these issues personally. It is easy to admonish sin that one has no interaction with. Thanks be to God that we have a Pope who desires to promote the mercy of God. Whatever the outcome of this synod will be, I am confident it will be as merciful as theologically possible, as that is the nature of God.

 

[zz912]

You are quite mistaken, zz912. I have not presented any arguments at all. I have only shared personal observations. If you are looking for arguments, I do know of a couple of Catholic theologians, if you are interested.

No, you claimed that you knew people who you claimed were 1. denied an annulment and
2. told to refrain from sex while their annulment was being decided.

Those are two completely distinct situations, you can’t be both. You are one or the other.

 

[Peebo]

Jesus spoke about divorce, but he also spoke about picking the specks out of others’ eyes. I always wonder when I see all the emotion in discussions about divorce and homosexuality, how many pontificating dealt with these issues personally. It is easy to admonish sin that one has no interaction with. Thanks be to God that we have a Pope who desires to promote the mercy of God. Whatever the outcome of this synod will be, I am confident it will be as merciful as theologically possible, as that is the nature of God.

 

[Lee_Fracker]

No, you claimed that you knew people who you claimed were 1. denied an annulment and
2. told to refrain from sex while their annulment was being decided.

Those are two completely distinct situations, you can’t be both. You are one or the other.

I see. You take the word “they” in the two sentences to refer to the same couple. But I intended the word “they” to refer only to the category of people who have been divorced and then remarried.

Feel better now?

 

[Peebo]

Originally Posted by Peebo View Post
Our priest gave a homily last night on the number of Catholics who tell him why certain people should be denied the Eucharist…his reply was that those people should worry about their own standing before God…it is only by the grace of God and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ that ANY of us (and he included himself) are made worthy to accept the Eucharist…in fact he equated those people to the pharisees…I think he is a tad peeved at some of the holier than thou Catholics in our parish…he is one of three new priests we have…all three of them seem to be in full support of Pope Francis…as I am also.

Given that it is the church herself who specifies the conditions where communion should be denied, if the Pharisees are those who accept the church’s teaching on this point, what do we call those who ignore it?

Ender

Our priest wasn’t questioning the teachings of the church…he was questioning the motives
of those Catholics who think they know who should and shouldn’t receive communion…and what do we call those who ignore it…personally I don’t call them anything…Jesus said “why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and not the log in your own eye”
This parable speaks against the type of judgmental attitudes that try to make others look like less than we are by pointing out their flaws without acknowledging our own. It tells us not to be hypocrites and to judge ourselves first, lest we deserve the same criticism we have for others. This is a section of God’s church which ignores this commandment to not be hypocritical. When we judge ourselves, we recognize we are sinful and our approach to others sin is with love and humility because we identify with them. If we deal the “plank in our eye” (the sin in our lives), we are then able to help others with the “speck in their eyes” (their sin) by pointing them to the solution that is needed by both parties…
I don’t see much love or humility in some of these posts…only a judgmental attitude

 

[Ender]

Our priest wasn’t questioning the teachings of the church…he was questioning the motives of those Catholics who think they know who should and shouldn’t receive communion…

Judging the motivations of others is something we are explicitly banned from doing.

Ender

 

[Peebo]

Judging the motivations of others is something we are explicitly banned from doing.

Ender

So it’s perfectly ok to judge others…just don’t question the motives of those who are passing judgment…:thumbsup:let me know where to find that in the Bible…incidently…I never said our priest was judging them…that is your word…I said he “questioned” their motives…the ones who were “judging” were the ones who were telling him who should and should not receive communion.

 

[Thomas_White]

Given that it is the church herself who specifies the conditions where communion should be denied, if the Pharisees are those who accept the church’s teaching on this point, what do we call those who ignore it?

Ender

Is the Synod of Bishops ignoring the teaching?

 

[pnewton]

Judging the motivations of others is something we are explicitly banned from doing.

Ender

Questioning is not judging. More to the point, when a priest refers to questioning motives in a homily, he is judging no one person, but calling all to self examination. This type of exhortation is what shepherds do for sheep. We all should heed this and on occasion examine our motives of why we wish to involve ourselves in why others receive the Eucharist, why priests let them, etc.

 

[Ender]

So it’s perfectly ok to judge others…just don’t question the motives of those who are passing judgment…

We may judge what we know; we may not judge what we do not know. That is, we may judge someone’s actions but we may not judge his motivation.

…let me know where to find that in the Bible.

The church has never limited herself to the Bible alone. Her doctrines are based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magisterium. Aquinas and many others have discussed this point in detail.

I never said our priest was judging them…that is your word…I said he “questioned” their motives…the ones who were “judging” were the ones who were telling him who should and should not receive communion.

Actually, that is not what you said.* he equated those people to the pharisees…I think he is a tad peeved at some of the holier than thou Catholics…
*He called the people who approached him *pharisees *and holier than thou Catholics. It isn’t clear how calling people names and disparaging them doesn’t constitute judging. He has an obligation in charity to interpret their comments in the best possible light; that clearly wasn’t done here. After publicly denouncing the people who came to him - even without naming them - how do you think someone else would feel about approaching him? How can you justify such a comment? It was uncharitable and it was wrong.

Ender