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

[Thomas_White]

There are things that I believe are a process not easily provided for by a written document, and that the perception of scandal is one of them. This requires the use of simple reason, which is to say common sense. It will vary from case to case and by separate instances. There is no absolute assurance nor is there of anyone receiving communion. There is the following:

“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28)

I would suggest one ought to be careful of judging others about the sin of adultery and of the meaning of adultery as well.

I wish to expand on my earlier comment. A person clearly cannot objectively know whether another person is in the state of mortal sin by his or her perception alone, and surely that a person has this perception of another person cannot in itself impart mortal sin to the other person’s soul. This would seem to involve the dubious notion that “perception is reality”. This is existential and not objective.

Suppose an observer, say, a shepherd of long ago, sees the sun invariably rise in the east each sunrise and set in the west each evening. This is the shepherd’s perception and all he knows of astronomy. He thus concludes that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west as it journeys round the earth (or travels to an unknown elsewhere in its daily journey). However, it is now objectively known this is not the fact. It is the earth that is in motion, and the shepherd’s perception is a subjective one.

There have been modern philosophers who have argued that the perception of the shepherd is real for him and thus is reality. If so, it would seem to be a subjective reality and relative to the shephered, for there remains the objective fact that the sun does not revolve around the earth. That a person is perceived in the state of mortal sin solely as the result of a second marriage is the result of a perception and this is no more of an objective truth than the perception that the sun revolves around the earth.

In the verse from Matthew provided above, there is clearly more to adultery than the current standard definition, an act outside of a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church. In the context of the verses of Matthew 5, it would seem this could occur even for a person in such a valid marriage. We see the disciples object–this is too hard. Who could live up to this, they protest? Christ in essence responds that for man this is impossible, but for God all things are possible. This would seem a reference to God’s mercy and forgiveness. This is a line of thinking developed in the theology of Romano Guardini and of Cardinal Kasper in this book on mercy.

In the teachings of Matthew, Mark and Luke concerning marriage and adultery, when the word ‘adultery’ is considered it seems something more is revealed that the modern definition of the word.

 

[Ender]

A person clearly cannot objectively know whether another person is in the state of mortal sin by his or her perception alone, and surely that a person has this perception of another person cannot in itself impart mortal sin to the other person’s soul. This would seem to involve the dubious notion that “perception is reality”. This is existential and not objective.

What you say is true, but as far as the public reception of communion is concerned, it is also irrelevant. The behavior of the couple within the marriage may not be known but the state of the marriage itself is public knowledge. The reception of communion by a couple known to have contracted a marriage that objectively contravenes God’s law would cause scandal and is not permitted.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps so. 'Tis a puzzlement…Given that their way of life would no longer be in actual contradiction of God’s law they may receive communion. Since, however, their situation is still perceived as objectively disordered they may not receive where the possibility of scandal exists.In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
It would seem that “this situation” referred to in the second citation is not the civil marriage itself but the perception of what it means…
[/INDENT]Clearly this would have to mean that their “situation” no longer “objectively contravenes God’s law.”

I have been away.
I think the solution you are suggesting here is causing more difficulties and you are likely correct to stay your original course.
It must be the case that something in their way of life still objectively contravene God’s law if public reception is not permitted.
However it is the nature of this something that must have changed if private Communion is permissible.
Clearly objective adultery is no longer present as that requires sexual matter.
But their is other objective matter present that is still significant e. g. cohabitation with a person other than one’s wife. This breaks the sacramental sign which is objective and serious… but not as serious as adultery and not intrinsically evil.

This is why I think you went a little too far when you said that remarrying is objectively mortally sinful. There can be circumstances when the wrongly remarried are in a wilfully disordered objective state which is not mortally sinful because grave matter (adultery) is no longer the disorder spoken of.

True sin may likely not be on the table at all here.
Yes there is still the objective disorder but technically this is called sin only in a very weak sense. It is better called transgression or “sinful matter” but it certainly is no longer “grave matter” which is required for the possibility of wilful personal mortal sin.

 

[Ender]

It must be the case that something in their way of life still objectively contravene God’s law if public reception is not permitted.

It is the civil marriage itself that is invalid. That is the “something in their way of life”.* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists. *(Ratzinger)

However it is the nature of this something that must have changed if private Communion is permissible.

It appears two things are required for this to happen: sexual relations must cease and there must be a valid reason why the couple cannot separate.The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution… This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’"

Clearly objective adultery is no longer present as that requires sexual matter.
But their is other objective matter present that is still significant e. g. cohabitation with a person other than one’s wife. This breaks the sacramental sign which is objective and serious… but not as serious as adultery and not intrinsically evil.

This is why I think you went a little too far when you said that remarrying is objectively mortally sinful. There can be circumstances when the wrongly remarried are in a wilfully disordered objective state which is not mortally sinful because grave matter (adultery) is no longer the disorder spoken of.

It is likely that no one enters into a marriage intending “abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” This makes the marriage objectively, mortally sinful. At a later time, some repair of this situation can be effected such that grave sin is no longer an issue.

True sin may likely not be on the table at all here.
Yes there is still the objective disorder but technically this is called sin only in a very weak sense. It is better called transgression or “sinful matter” but it certainly is no longer “grave matter” which is required for the possibility of wilful personal mortal sin.

It is certainly sinful to the extent that it is scandalous.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is the civil marriage itself that is invalid. That is the “something in their way of life”.* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists. *(Ratzinger)
It appears two things are required for this to happen: sexual relations must cease and there must be a valid reason why the couple cannot separate.The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution… This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’"
It is likely that no one enters into a marriage intending “abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” This makes the marriage objectively, mortally sinful. At a later time, some repair of this situation can be effected such that grave sin is no longer an issue.
It is certainly sinful to the extent that it is scandalous.

Ender

Ender I have attempted to lead you to solid theological ground, you are on your own re the above which has many dubious points I don’t have the time to explore further with you sorry.
Suffice it to say that I believe I have ably demonstrated that you are less than correct to suppose that the situation of all the remarried is “objectively mortally sinful.” This expression to the best of my knowledge is not one of the Magisterium, and certainly never in the context of the remarried.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is likely that no one enters into a marriage intending “abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” This makes the marriage objectively, mortally sinful. At a later time, some repair of this situation can be effected such that grave sin is no longer an issue.

Ender

This point needs to be discussed further too. I did not raise this issue below because it is a completely separate issue.
Let’s start then by speaking only of the sexually active remarried.

Would you accept that the 1st marriages of significant numbers of the remarried and the divorced/separated and even current 1st marriages are not valid?

 

[Ender]

This point needs to be discussed further too. I did not raise this issue below because it is a completely separate issue.
Let’s start then by speaking only of the sexually active remarried.

Would you accept that the 1st marriages of significant numbers of the remarried and the divorced/separated and even current 1st marriages are not valid?

I have no idea what makes a marriage invalid and even less of a conception about how many marriages would fall in that category. I do know, however, that all marriages are presumed to be valid until explicitly determined to be otherwise.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have no idea what makes a marriage invalid and even less of a conception about how many marriages would fall in that category. I do know, however, that all marriages are presumed to be valid until explicitly determined to be otherwise.

Ender

Would you accept that the Church does, whether we understand it or not, have the authority to determine by objective criteria whether a given apparantly legitimate marriage does in fact meet all the requirements essential for establishing the marriage bond before God?

 

[Ender]

Would you accept that the Church does, whether we understand it or not, have the authority to determine by objective criteria whether a given apparantly legitimate marriage does in fact meet all the requirements essential for establishing the marriage bond before God?

Yes

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes

Ender

Would you also accept that the ultimate objectivity in this regard is how God sees the bond and that the Church’s attempts to discover the status of this bond is a process of law and therefore a limited and even putative judgement compared to God’s view?

 

[Ender]

Would you also accept that the ultimate objectivity in this regard is how God sees the bond and that the Church’s attempts to discover the status of this bond is a process of law and therefore a limited and even putative judgement compared to God’s view?

Tribunals make judgments, judgments may be wrong. God, not so much.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Tribunals make judgments, judgments may be wrong. God, not so much.

Ender

Do you then accept that the ultimate objectivity you speak of wrt the “matter” of human acts (whether disordered or not) primarily comes not from the judgements of clerical tribunals (positive law) which are imperfect but from God who perfectly sees the natural order (Natural Law)?

 

[Ender]

Do you then accept that the ultimate objectivity you speak of wrt the “matter” of human acts (whether disordered or not) primarily comes not from the judgements of clerical tribunals (positive law) which are imperfect but from God who perfectly sees the natural order (Natural Law)?

The ultimate judge of all human acts of course is God. That does not absolve man of making the judgments he is required to make, perfect or not.

You can bundle these questions together; it’s not necessary to string them out one at a time. I’ll answer them the same way…it won’t change my answers to see where you are taking the discussion.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The ultimate judge of all human acts of course is God. That does not absolve man of making the judgments he is required to make, perfect or not.

You can bundle these questions together; it’s not necessary to string them out one at a time. I’ll answer them the same way…it won’t change my answers to see where you are taking the discussion.

Ender

Is that a yes or a no?
I am really talking about what constitutes the actual objective matter in question rather than human judgements about that matter which does not have the same objective guarantee even if legally binding.
I don’t actually know where this is going… as it depends on how you see things. Such is the nature of a true discussion?

 

[Ender]

Is that a yes or a no?
I am really talking about what constitutes the actual objective matter in question rather than human judgements about that matter which does not have the same objective guarantee even if legally binding.
I don’t actually know where this is going… as it depends on how you see things. Such is the nature of a true discussion?

There are objectives truths. There are also subjective perceptions of those truths, which are not always correct. Human tribunals, attempting to determine whether a marriage was in fact valid, can err, both by claiming valid marriages were invalid and by asserting that an invalid marriage was valid. Perception clearly is not always reality. So, if I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are objectives truths. There are also subjective perceptions of those truths, which are not always correct. Human tribunals, attempting to determine whether a marriage was in fact valid, can err, both by claiming valid marriages were invalid and by asserting that an invalid marriage was valid. Perception clearly is not always reality. So, if I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes.

Ender

Agreed, so you would also agree that 1st marriages are merely assumed valid and such an unanalysed subjective assumption/declaration may be (and regularly are) overturned at a later date when there is good reason to examine the actual track record?

In which cases the overturning of the initial assumed declaration goes to the root of the marriage and effectively rules there was no bond or marriage ab initio?

 

[Ender]

Agreed, so you would also agree that 1st marriages are merely assumed valid and such an unanalysed subjective assumption/declaration may be (and regularly are) overturned at a later date when there is good reason to examine the actual track record?

Yes.

In which cases the overturning of the initial assumed declaration goes to the root of the marriage and effectively rules there was no bond or marriage ab initio?

Yes.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes.

Yes.

Ender

OK, then would you also agree it seems there is a very real difficulty in us truly determining the exact nature of the “objective matter” of some types of regular and willingly chosen sexual activity.

It is not hard to accurately objectively identify habitual fornication.
But how do we discriminate adultery with certainty?

The difference is the presence of a marriage bond which cannot be seen with the eyes. And we have just concluded that the human power of discernment re the marriage bond, even when analysed by a juridical process, can still be uncertain and limited in its findings.

So would you also agree that to definitively identify the sexual activity of an allegedly remarried couple as certainly objective “adultery” is not really possible. The most that can be said is that the objective matter is currently technical adultery according to the human law of the land/Church.

And what if the case has been analysed by a marriage Tribunal?
If the Tribunal has declined to declare nullify does that mean with certainty the bond exists…or can it also mean there simply is not enough quality legal evidence/witnesses to confirm what the sinned against partner already knows to be true but which cannot be legally demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Tribunal…

In short, would you agree that even after the intervention and discernment of a Tribunal we cannot always be certain in our judgement that sexual activity by the remarried is truly and objectively judged to be “objective adultery”.
It may simply be fornication.

At best all we can objectively determine with certainty is that it is technical (ie according to human law) adultery… which may be very different from adultery as seen by God (ie the adultery of Natural Law).

 

[Ender]

OK, then would you also agree it seems there is a very real difficulty in us truly determining the exact nature of the “objective matter” of some types of regular and willingly chosen sexual activity.

Knowing exactly what goes on in a couple’s bedroom is not necessary. A second, civil marriage is objectively wrong.*If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists. *(Ratzinger)

It is not hard to accurately objectively identify habitual fornication. But how do we discriminate adultery with certainty?

It is no more possible to determine the one than the other, but the issue does not turn on whether one can know with certainty what people are or are not doing. What is known is sufficient: the situation “objectively contravenes God’s law.”

The difference is the presence of a marriage bond which cannot be seen with the eyes. And we have just concluded that the human power of discernment re the marriage bond, even when analysed by a juridical process, can still be uncertain and limited in its findings.

The difference, rather, is this: the situation of the remarried couple is public while that of the libertine is private. This is why the remarried can generally not receive publicly even if they have agreed to live as brother and sister.

So would you also agree that to definitively identify the sexual activity of an allegedly remarried couple as certainly objective “adultery” is not really possible.

First, they are not allegedly remarried. Marriage is a public event. If no one knows they were divorced and remarried then there is nothing to stop them from receiving communion except their own consciences. When, however, their situation is known to the community, the minister of communion has the obligation not to allow them to receive (at least publicly) *regardless *of the nature of their sexual activity.

The most that can be said is that the objective matter is currently technical adultery according to the human law of the land/Church.

Civil law is utterly irrelevant here, nor can church doctrines be reduced to merely “human” laws. Her doctrines are based on God’s laws, not her own whims.

And what if the case has been analysed by a marriage Tribunal?
If the Tribunal has declined to declare nullify does that mean with certainty the bond exists…or can it also mean there simply is not enough quality legal evidence/witnesses to confirm what the sinned against partner already knows to be true but which cannot be legally demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Tribunal…

In short, would you agree that even after the intervention and discernment of a Tribunal we cannot always be certain in our judgement that sexual activity by the remarried is truly and objectively judged to be “objective adultery”.
It may simply be fornication.

Again I will point out: “proof” is irrelevant. A divorced and civilly remarried couple is in an objectively immoral situation. Nor is the distinction between fornication and adultery meaningful. Those who were previously unmarried but are publicly living together should also be denied communion.

At best all we can objectively determine with certainty is that it is technical (ie according to human law) adultery… which may be very different from adultery as seen by God (ie the adultery of Natural Law).

Are you saying the church has misinterpreted God’s laws in this matter? Suppose a situation exists where a previous marriage should have been annulled but the tribunal erred and refused to nullify it. The couple decides in their own minds the first marriage was invalid and remarries civilly.

They still may not receive because of the scandal involved; their public situation is no different than those with valid first marriages. If they are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their decision they can attend a church where their situation is unknown and receive communion along with everyone else, but they cannot receive (or at least should not) where their situation is public knowledge.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Knowing exactly what goes on in a couple’s bedroom is not necessary. A second, civil marriage is objectively wrong.

If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists. (Ratzinger)
​

Ender may I begin by saying I am not interested in Communion issues at all and actually have no predetermined conclusion on the matter. I am only interested in logically analysing how various principles we can be certain of interrelate with each other and what conclusions can therefore be inferred with equal certitude. We can then identify those propositions that are not certain or which may be ambiguous and which we may have interpreted incorrectly.

Re the above statement from Pope Benedict… You do realise that it is a conclusion dependent on hypothetical certain knowledge that the first marriage is valid don’t you?
This is clear if we see how Card Ratzinger is quoted in the Catechism:

“1650 The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.”

The problem you are not really facing head on is that human beings in the real world, unlike God, cannot always be certain that the first marriage bond actually exists. If it does not exist then the 2nd marriage is clearly NOT objective adultery. It would be objective fornication.

It is not hard to accurately objectively identify habitual fornication. But how do we discriminate adultery with certainty?

It is no more possible to determine the one than the other, but the issue does not turn on whether one can know with certainty what people are or are not doing. What is known is sufficient: the situation "objectively contravenes God’s law.

How so? We humans, not even clerical Tribunal judges, can always be certain if the 1st marriage bond actually exists - as shown above the Pope’s quote can not be reasonably or clearly shown not to support you at all in your conclusion on this matter.
Do you have any other supporting Magisterial statement’s? I don’t think you will find any because I believe you are mistaken.

It seems very possible to discover formication as opposed to adultery.
If two persons are known never to have married but are in a sexual relationship then that is pretty clearly objective fornication to me.

However if one is known to have been previously married then it gets far more complicated.
Its adultery if the 1st marriage bond was established. It is fornication if the marriage bond was not established.

How do you, the alleged “objective judge” make this determination please?
Not easy is it?
But it is easy to objectively determine fornication wrt the never married. isn’t it?

So would you also agree that to definitively identify the sexual activity of an allegedly remarried couple as certainly objective “adultery” is not really possible.

First, they are not allegedly remarried. Marriage is a public event.

You mean they actually are re-married? Come on Ender. You know what I am saying.
You know as well as I do that those who are validly married before God cannot validly “re-marry” regardless of how public it is. The second alleged marriage will only be a civil simulation. That is why I call it “alleged”. What is your problem with that?

You have to be clear what level is truly the “objective one”. Is it the marriage bond that only God sees. Or is it the public legal ceremony (whether Church or Civil)? You cannot have it both ways when it comes to “objective”.

The most that can be said is that the objective matter is currently technical adultery according to the human law of the land/Church.

Civil law is utterly irrelevant here, nor can church doctrines be reduced to merely “human” laws.

Ender even Church tribunals are composed of fallible humans and use fallible evidential processes before making judgements. Therefore the judgements they make about “what God sees” (ie the existence or not of the immutable marriage bond) are equally fallible and subjective. What God sees remains objective and everlasting of course.
Why can you no accept this?

A divorced and civilly remarried couple is in an objectively immoral situation.

No. This universal statement is only true if there is some way we could be sure that the first marriage bond did exist. The only “certainty” we have is a legal one and therefore the “objectivity” is no more than human-legal. Canon Law judgements in this matter are no more certain than those of Civil Law. Canon Law and Canon Law authorised Tribunals attempts to determine if God’s Law has been broken.
But its judgements are in the end still limited and so are still merely likely perceptions of what it is supposed that God might see … are they not? And perceptions are always subjective rather than objective. So we are dealing in likelihoods and probabilities not absolute certainties when it comes to human, legal judgements wrt marriage bonds. Do you not agree?

So the only certitude and “objectivity” you will ever get on the matter of adultery is one of “technical adultery” and a subjective probability that this is also what God sees.
We might call that “legal objectivity”.
But its hardly “Divine objectivity” which is the only one that counts when we start defining classes of people who willingly engage in “objective mortal sins.”

How can it be otherwise?
Tribunal judges are not infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit are they?​