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

[Ender]

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?

I disagree. The fact that the second was a civil marriage is sufficient. “1650 …* 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.

This is true, but it doesn’t change the situation. The matter does not hinge solely on the objective validity of the first marriage. It must be discerned with certainty* by means of the external forum established by the Church ***whether there is objectively such a nullity of marriage. The discipline of the Church, …confirms the exclusive competence of ecclesiastical tribunals with respect to the examination of the validity of the marriage of Catholics…

*Adherence to the Church’s judgment and observance of the existing discipline concerning the obligation of canonical form necessary for the validity of the marriage of Catholics are what truly contribute to the spiritual welfare of the faithful concerned. The Church is in fact the Body of Christ and to live in ecclesial communion is to live in the Body of Christ and to nourish oneself with the Body of Christ. With the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist, communion with Christ the Head can never be separated from communion with his members, that is, with his Church. For this reason, the sacrament of our union with Christ is also the sacrament of the unity of the Church. Receiving Eucharistic Communion contrary to ecclesial communion is therefore in itself a contradiction. Sacramental communion with Christ includes and presupposes the observance, even if at times difficult, of the order of ecclesial communion, and it cannot be right and fruitful if a member of the faithful, wishing to approach Christ directly, does not respect this order. *(Ratzinger - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

If [the marriage bond] does not exist then the 2nd marriage is clearly NOT objective adultery. It would be objective fornication.

Either way, the fact of a civil marriage means it “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.

What further documentation is necessary beyond what is stated in the Catechism? 1650 *If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law.
*Nothing that appears either before or after alters the meaning of that sentence.

It seems very possible to discover fornication 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.

You make too much of the ambiguity surrounding the validity of the first marriage. If I commit an act that I believe is sinful I have sinned regardless of whether the act is objectively sinful or not. Further, if I commit an act that I think may be sinful, that lack of certainty condemns the act as well. Those remarried civilly cannot possibly be certain their first marriage was invalid. The objective doubt that you think refutes the church’s position is the very doubt that condemns those who have created the situation. One can be guilty of an act of adultery without committing an objectively adulterous act. Ambiguity condemns, it does not excuse.

You mean they actually are re-married? Come on Ender. You know what I am saying.

No, actually I didn’t.

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 not accept this?

I recognize their fallibility. What I reject are the conclusions you draw from that fact.

No. This universal statement is only true if there is some way we could be sure that the first marriage bond did exist.

That’s not what the catechism says. You are rejecting a clear, unequivocal statement, and attaching to it conditions the church did not see fit to add.

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?

Not exactly.CCC 553* “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and** to make disciplinary decisions in the Church**.*
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

True, which is why the comment applies to the conditions Blue Horizon specified, namely a couple “willfully continuing in this bad objective state”.

Ender

There are objective criteria for making a good (valid) confession and receiving absolution through the sacrament of confession, and an examination of conscience is one of them. Let us suppose that a person examines his or her conscience, concludes a certain act was not sinful, or perhaps was not a mortal sin, and then confesses his or her sins in the confessional and receives absolution.

Let us further suppose that others witnessed the act in question and conclude what they perceived was objectively a mortal sin. Who is right? Based on the testimony of witnesses could a Church tribunal objectively determine whether or not the person made a valid confession? And is this objective judgment necessarily correct?

Is not a sacrament between an individual and God? How could what is spiritual be objectively determined by a tribunal? Is it not a rather grand assumption that this is even possible? And is it even wise for a tribunal to judge what occurs between God and man?

 

[Ender]

There are objective criteria for making a good (valid) confession and receiving absolution through the sacrament of confession, and an examination of conscience is one of them. Let us suppose that a person examines his or her conscience, concludes a certain act was not sinful, or perhaps was not a mortal sin, and then confesses his or her sins in the confessional and receives absolution.

If a person perceived his act not to be a sin he would have no need to confess it.

Let us further suppose that others witnessed the act in question and conclude what they perceived was objectively a mortal sin. Who is right?

Some acts are intrinsically evil. Anyone witnessing such an act could rightly conclude that it was indeed sinful. The person who committed the act has committed a sin regardless of his personal view on the matter.

Based on the testimony of witnesses could a Church tribunal objectively determine whether or not the person made a valid confession?

I’m not sure what constitutes a valid confession. If a person commits a sinful act he may or may not be culpable, but the act is nonetheless sinful. A church tribunal could certainly determine that.

Is not a sacrament between an individual and God?

Not entirely, no. Marriage, for example, is public as is the reception of communion.
*Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
*Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Marriage, for example, is public as is the reception of communion.

I assure you a Catholic marriage is not necessarily public. I only wished to offer an observation in view of our own long discussion on the thread but don’t wish to interrupt the current discusion. There is no need to reply.

 

[Ender]

I assure you a Catholic marriage is not necessarily public. I only wished to offer an observation in view of our own long discussion on the thread but don’t wish to interrupt the current discusion. There is no need to reply.

I see I left off the attribution of the comment I cited. Let me correct that. I know that individual marriages can be performed with no more than a priest and two witnesses; I have in fact been a witness at such a marriage. Nonetheless, the point stands.
Marriage…*is essentially a public reality. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
"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."

OK lets pursue this tack and see where your implicit principles lead… we can leave your other somewhat questionable statements until later.

First, would you mind clearly defining what “Law of God” here is objectively contravened?

Second, what essentially (ie the absolute minimum factors) is it about the “situation” of the remarried here that so contravenes objectively?

Third, please explain why this objective disorder is not only “intrinsically” evil but also “gravely” evil (which must be so because below you say it is “objectively mortally sinful”).

 

[Ender]

OK lets pursue this tack and see where your implicit principles lead…

Wait…“my implicit principles?” I’m citing church documents, how does something written in the Catechism get reduced to my opinion?

First, would you mind clearly defining what “Law of God” here is objectively contravened?

Since section 1650 cites this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”, I would assume this is what is being referred to.

Second, what essentially (ie the absolute minimum factors) is it about the “situation” of the remarried here that so contravenes objectively?

Again, from 1650: *“The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was.” *If the second marriage was civil, that would seem an admission that the first marriage cannot be considered invalid, therefore the second one is.

Third, please explain why this objective disorder is not only “intrinsically” evil but also “gravely” evil (which must be so because below you say it is “objectively mortally sinful”).

Adultery is a grave evil, as I’m sure you know.

Let me point out again: your objections are not with my statements, they are with the catechism. I simply cited the relevant section. My explanations may be inadequate, but the meaning of the section itself seems quite obvious.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Wait…“my implicit principles?” I’m citing church documents, how does something written in the Catechism get reduced to my opinion?
Since section 1650 cites this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”, I would assume this is what is being referred to.
Again, from 1650: *“The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was.” *If the second marriage was civil, that would seem an admission that the first marriage cannot be considered invalid, therefore the second one is.
Adultery is a grave evil, as I’m sure you know.

Let me point out again: your objections are not with my statements, they are with the catechism. I simply cited the relevant section. My explanations may be inadequate, but the meaning of the section itself seems quite obvious.

Ender

Ender I trust that when two intelligent and educated Catholics disagree over Magisterial or CCC quotes we can both have the humility to accept that one or both of us are interpreting or perceiving these quotes differently. This usually happens because over time even the wisest and purest of us build up imperfect and hence different theological world views due to imperfect understanding or logic. By discussion, good faith and reason/logic we hopefully weed out those imperfections and adjust our assumed principles and gaps in knowledge accordingly. Thus at least one of us is expressing mere opinion when analysing quotes, especially when we disagree. And often even when we agree . Surely you are not God or perfectly know the mind of texts you did not write!

That I hope is what we are doing here and I trust you are open to the likelihood some of your implicit principles are at least as fragile as mine? I don’t understand why you seem miffed or why you so readily assume your mind is perfectly in accord with that of the author of the documents you believe are crystal clear.

Re (a): what “Law of God” here is objectively contravened? **
Ender I find your answer here possesses less candour and intellectual acumen than you usually show. Instead of quoting the obvious and much fuller answer that Card Ratzinger provided but two paragraphs later in the source document you **originally quoted (1994)…you merely offer what I noted in the Catechism which obviously draws on this fuller text and it needs to be read in conjunction with it for full understanding.

You opine that the Law that is broken is primarily Natural Law, the 7th Commandment - though shalt not commit adultery. Yet Cardinal Ratzinger’s text does not support your contention does it? Its more subtle than that.

He says, “…recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid.”

This is not primarily about Natural Law (adultery) but about Canon Law…“validity” is not primarily about the 7th Commandment, it is about the (legal) marriage state isn’t it? That’s primarily about Canon Law, or Civil Law (whether formal or de facto) or the public “Union”… its not primarily about Natural Law or the status of their habitual sexual activity whether real or assumed.

And Card Ratzinger goes on to say:
“This norm…expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion…their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church…if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”

It is made clear here that the “Law of God” they are objectively contradicting is the law/teaching of the Indissolubility of marriage.

That “Law” is primarily objectively contradicted, as a minimum, simply by the 2nd simulated marriage. That is all that is essentially necessary to be in this situation, this objective state.

There is no mention of needing to consummate or be sexually active.
You know as well as I they still may not receive Communion publicly even if platonic.
So THE COUPLE DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO BE SEXUALLY ACTIVE.
So long as they continue to live in such a way as to be seen as man and wife…that is enough to be in this objectively contradictory state that breaks God’s Law.

Just as Card Ratzinger goes on to say:
“Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion…The mistaken conviction they may receive Holy Communion… of one’s own convictions … about the existence or absence of a previous marriage…is inadmissable. Marriage is … the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church is essentially a public reality.”

So I say you are in reality mistaken to so coarsely believe this “Law of God” Card Ratzinger speaks of is primarily about sexual activity (rightly assumed or not) with someone other than your 1st marriage partner.

It is primarily about the public “unions” (whether civil legal or merely "de facto 2nd marriage) because that public fact in itself intrinsically contravene God’s “Law” of Indissolubility.

That is what Card Ratzinger clearly meant in 1994.
He never actually mentions the word “adultery” directly anywhere in his article does he?
That would be very strange if your interpretation was the correct one.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Do you significantly disagree with my analysis?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Wait…“my implicit principles?” I’m citing church documents, how does something written in the Catechism get reduced to my opinion?
Ender

I forgot to addrerss this below.

Do you recall it was your personal opinion below that started this discussion with me?
(i.e. the objective situation Card Ratzinger speaks of is “objectively mortally sinful.”)

I disagree with your phrase being applied to what Card Ratzinger speaks of because:
(a) this phrase is NOT found in any citation from a Church document (let alone the Cardinal) that I am aware of.
(b) it is therefore really YOUR interpretation of Church docs based on your own personal, implicit theological/moral principles.

By looking at what related Church docs actually say and fairly clearly can be demonstrated to mean … I believe it is possible to demonstrate to you that your above inference is likely a bridge too far on this particular point.

 

[Ender]

**Re (a): what “Law of God” here is objectively contravened? **

You opine that the Law that is broken is primarily Natural Law, the 7th Commandment - though shalt not commit adultery. Yet Cardinal Ratzinger’s text does not support your contention does it? Its more subtle than that…This is not primarily about Natural Law (adultery) but about Canon Law…“validity” is not primarily about the 7th Commandment, it is about the (legal) marriage state isn’t it?

Well, I disagree with this. It is not the violation of Canon Law that is the concern (besides, Canon Law in this case would simply be the application of the Natural Law). As you said later on: *“It is made clear here that the ‘Law of God’ they are objectively contradicting is the law/teaching of the Indissolubility of marriage.” *

That “Law” is primarily objectively contradicted, as a minimum, simply by the 2nd simulated marriage. That is all that is essentially necessary to be in this situation, this objective state.

I agree, but the law in this case is clearly not canon law, but the Law of God.

There is no mention of needing to consummate or be sexually active.
You know as well as I they still may not receive Communion publicly even if platonic.
So THE COUPLE DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO BE SEXUALLY ACTIVE.
So long as they continue to live in such a way as to be seen as man and wife…that is enough to be in this objectively contradictory state that breaks God’s Law.

This is less clear. That they cannot receive publicly is because of the perception they have violated God’s law, but isn’t the fact that they can receive at all an indication that they are not actually in violation of that law?

So I say you are in reality mistaken to so coarsely believe this “Law of God” Card Ratzinger speaks of is primarily about sexual activity (rightly assumed or not) with someone other than your 1st marriage partner.

That’s not quite the right conclusion, and I think it pushes Ratzinger’s comments beyond the point he was making. Take this statement:* 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.
*We know that statement is not quite accurate. As he explains a paragraph or two later, they are allowed to receive communion if certain conditions are met. There are two conditions here that are not entirely separable: adultery, and a way of life that is “*in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.” *The thing is, they can receive communion if they remain married so long as they refrain from sex, so it would seem the fact of the marriage alone is perhaps not the Law of God that is being violated.

It is primarily about the public “unions” (whether civil legal or merely "de facto 2nd marriage) because that public fact in itself intrinsically contravene God’s “Law” of Indissolubility.

This is why they cannot publicly receive, but would not explain why they can receive at all.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Do you recall it was your personal opinion below that started this discussion with me?
(i.e. the objective situation Card Ratzinger speaks of is “objectively mortally sinful.”)

I disagree with your phrase being applied to what Card Ratzinger speaks of because:
(a) this phrase is NOT found in any citation from a Church document (let alone the Cardinal) that I am aware of.

Here is Ratzinger’s specific phrase.* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law…*
I think it is clear that the situation is objectively sinful so it seems your objection is to the addition of the word “mortally” (which is not actually a phrase I used, but it conveys my understanding.) I suppose it is true that just because something contravenes God’s law doesn’t make it grave matter, but the fact that it prevents someone from receiving communion surely does.…Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.

(b) it is therefore really YOUR interpretation of Church docs based on your own personal, implicit theological/moral principles.

I suppose, but it is a position I will maintain until it can be demonstrated to be invalid.

By looking at what related Church docs actually say and fairly clearly can be demonstrated to mean … I believe it is possible to demonstrate to you that your above inference is likely a bridge too far on this particular point.

That’s a great reference, even if I disagree with it.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here is Ratzinger’s specific phrase.* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law…*
I think it is clear that the situation is objectively sinful so it seems your objection is to the addition of the word “mortally” (which is not actually a phrase I used, but it conveys my understanding.) I suppose it is true that just because something contravenes God’s law doesn’t make it grave matter, but the fact that it prevents someone from receiving communion surely does.…Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.
I suppose, but it is a position I will maintain until it can be demonstrated to be invalid.
That’s a great reference, even if I disagree with it.

Ender

Ender do you have any significant objections to my analysis of what Cardinal Ratzinger actually refers to when he talks about the “objective state/situation” of the remarried breaking “God’s Law”?
You say it is primarily the sexual activity (which you further identify as adultery).
I believe you are mistaken. I say it is primarily the simulated re-marriage.
And what it **primarily **breaks is the Teaching of the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage (which is a sign of God’s faithful Covenant with his People) and NOT the 7th Commandment.

(BTW do you notice that both Pope JPII and Card Ratz go out of their way NOT to call the associated sexual activity, if present, “adultery.” They use a peculiarly ambiguous expression, “the acts proper to husband and wife”.

I believe they do this intentionally precisely because we cannot be sure of the objective status of the sexual activity … we can only be objective about the marriage’s legal status.)

(Of course I object to your addition of the word “mortally”. I have ben very clear with you from the start that this is a serious over-extension of Catholic theology when predicated of the remarried - it has very pejorative implications for them, even for the sincerely remarried.

If you were correct then anyone who wilfully continues to cohabit when they have been advised it is against Church teaching…would be condemned to hell if they did not change.
This rigorism simply cannot be upheld by Church Marital Theology - let alone by your quote from Card Ratzinger (who in fact quotes JPII in Fam Cons).)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, I disagree with this. It is not the violation of Canon Law that is the concern (besides, Canon Law in this case would simply be the application of the Natural Law). As you said later on: "It is made clear here that the ‘Law of God’ they are objectively contradicting is the law/teaching of the Indissolubility of marriage."

Ender my main point is that you said what was broken was the 7th Commandment, ADULTERY. This is completely unsupportable in the actual text. Card Ratz never uses the word adultery at all.

Clearly by “God’s Law” he meant Jesus’s new Teaching, His “New Law” from God that from the beginning (sacramental) Marriage was meant to be unbreakable because it is a sign of God’s unbreakable Covenant with His People.
I believe we now both agree on this point.

However you disagree with my description of the importance of Canon Law in defining the fallible conditions by which we come to the judgment as to who actually is married and who is not. We cannot even address the legitimacy of receiving Communion (let alone the even more difficult question of recognising what sexual activity is fornication as opposed to adultery) without Canon Law and the judgements of Canon Law instituted Tribunals can we?
But lets slide on this for the moment, as long as you agree Card Ratz is referring to Christ’s Teaching on the Indissolubility of Marriage when he speaks of contradicting “God’s Law”?

That they cannot receive publicly is because of the perception they have violated God’s law, but isn’t the fact that they can receive at all an indication that they are not actually in violation of that law?

OK, I see faulty logic at play here…causing you to miss what Cardinal Ratzinger actually assumes (BTW Card R is really quoting JPII (Fam Cons) almost word for word in this 1994 address we are discussing).

Ender you cannot interpret “objective” and “intrinsic” in this unstable manner. Either the remarried are intrinsically violating in their objective situation or they are not. You know this.

You are clearly confused as to why the non sexually active cohabiting are allowed to receive. And the reason is because your theology cannot easily explain the discrepancy.
And I am trying to advise you that the reason your theology cannot explain this easily is because it is slightly mistaken.

If you would give me a chance to lead you to slightly different understandings of what Card R and JPII are really saying you will see my slightly different theology from yours actually has no problem at all with this. That shouldn’t be surprising as I have the equivalent of a Masters in Theology (a 6 yr degree) in this area.

And the weakness of your theological logic is this:

• you assume that breaking “God’s Law” is not only essentially/intrinsically evil but also **gravely **evil.
• if “God’s Law” here was adultery you would be correct.
• BUT IT ISN’T. “God’s law” here is the teaching on the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage (lets call it “TISM”. CLEARLY the continued wilful breaking of this law is NOT always gravely evil. In some circumstances it is acceptable for the remarried to continue to do this even though the objective contradiction still exists - that is why they are allowed to receive Communion privately.

Do you get it yet?

There are at least two ways that the TISM Law may be broken:
(a) by simulating a 2nd marriage (even if just de facto cohabitation)
(b) by regular sexual activity with another if one is not remarried.

Lets look at the situation wrt Communion in each case:
(b) if one fairly regularly visits a brothel, and confesses each time, one may receive Communion. There is no “objective state” of wilful ongoing contradiction."
If this was small town and this regular “addiction” was well known by Church attendees then it is conceivable that Communion should be refused due to material scandal.
If one does not confess, then one is clearly bound by one’s own conscience not to receive Communion.
(a) As it is the known fact of the 2nd marriage (or just cohabitation itself) that constitutes the “objective state” of contradiction then the same theological principles as above can be applied. The sinner here is also breaking TISM. But there are two further conditions (sexual activity and publicity) that need to be further investigated:
Regular sexual activity? If so then this activity is rightly assumed not with one’s true wife and so must be considered objectively and gravely disordered. However Confession is not possible as this regular sexual activity is wilful so absolution is not possible. One is then conscience bound not to receive Communion.
If there is no sexual activity TISM is still broken objectively by the ongoing state of simulated remarriage and the wilful ongoing cohabitation. So this wilfulness is still, objectively, a disorder, a transgression. However if one wills this for the good of the children then the disorder, while still a disorder, is NOT GRAVE. So venial sin at worst and the possibility of Communion is allowed. HOWEVER, **Church discipline **currently demands that this is not allowed if one’s disorder is publically known by other Communion participants. (Just like the confessing prostitute client above who for disciplinary/prudential reasons may be barred by his PP).

CONTINUED BELOW…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…

The thing is, they can receive communion if they remain married so long as they refrain from sex, so it would seem the fact of the marriage alone is perhaps not the Law of God that is being violated

I don’t think so. You are starting to somewhat torture as it were Cardinal Ratzinger’s text purely because you cannot quite get your personal theology to fit all the facts re allowed Communion Discipline.

I believe I have demonstrated a deeper and more coherent logic and a reading of Card Ratzinger that better harmonises with what he is readily observed to have actually said.

This does entail a slightly different theology from what you hold as to the relationship between “grave disorder” and “intrinsic disorder” when discussing the “objective matter” of a wilful act.

I hold that wilful cohabitation with a 2nd “wife” is not always a **grave **breaking of Jesus’s teaching on the Indisollubility of a sacramental Marriage.

Yes, its always objectively evil, a disorder, but not always gravely so.
Just like Theft.

 

[Ender]

Ender my main point is that you said what was broken was the 7th Commandment, ADULTERY. This is completely unsupportable in the actual text. Card Ratz never uses the word adultery at all.

That the word is not used does not affect the meaning of the statement. It can be inferred from what was said.

Clearly by “God’s Law” he meant Jesus’s new Teaching, His “New Law” from God that from the beginning (sacramental) Marriage was meant to be unbreakable because it is a sign of God’s unbreakable Covenant with His People.
I believe we now both agree on this point.

We agree that marriage is unbreakable; what we disagree on is whether that is the law that Ratzinger was referring to.

However you disagree with my description of the importance of Canon Law…

I disagreed with your assertion that “This is not primarily about Natural Law (adultery) but about Canon Law.” I said nothing about the importance of canon law, only that the real concern is the violation of natural law.

Either the remarried are intrinsically violating in their objective situation or they are not…

And the weakness of your theological logic is this:

• you assume that breaking “God’s Law” is not only essentially/intrinsically evil but also **gravely **evil.
• if “God’s Law” here was adultery you would be correct.
• BUT IT ISN’T. “God’s law” here is the teaching on the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage (lets call it “TISM”. CLEARLY the continued wilful breaking of this law is NOT always gravely evil. In some circumstances it is acceptable for the remarried to continue to do this even though the objective contradiction still exists - that is why they are allowed to receive Communion privately.

Let me cite the complete statement again:* 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.
First, note that whatever law is being violated is serious enough to prevent people from receiving communion. That is, it is a grave matter. Second, as you point out, couples who abstain from sexual relations may receive, so whatever transgression they are committing is not grave matter.

If they can receive communion then it must be true that the “situation” being spoken of no longer persists, but we know that the civil remarriage may continue, so how can that be the objective contradiction?

I am willing to grant that Ratzinger’s comment here was perhaps not intended to be examined in this much detail if his intention was to make a different point. Nonetheless, what was said was that the “situation that objectively contravenes God’s law” is what prevents the reception of communion. We also know that the change required to receive communion is not the dissolution of the second marriage but the cessation of sexual relations. That is, it is the adultery that must end, not the marriage.

If there is no sexual activity TISM is still broken objectively by the ongoing state of simulated remarriage and the wilful ongoing cohabitation. So this wilfulness is still, objectively, a disorder, a transgression. However if one wills this for the good of the children then the disorder, while still a disorder, is NOT GRAVE.

This seems like a reasonable argument, except that it runs counter to this:1753* A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.
*Certainly a “situation that objectively contravenes God’s law” is intrinsically disordered. Therefore there is no justification for arguing that it is OK to continue it, or that one’s good intention reduces its severity from a grave sin to a venial one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I hold that wilful cohabitation with a 2nd “wife” is not always a **grave **breaking of Jesus’s teaching on the Indisollubility of a sacramental Marriage.

Yes, its always objectively evil, a disorder, but not always gravely so.
Just like Theft.

For clarity’s sake let me cite the catechism again.* 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**.
*What is the “situation” referred to here? How can it refer to the teaching that marriage is indissoluble if the marriage may continue under special conditions? Wouldn’t that mean that the teaching was really “marriage is indissoluble except when it’s not?” How do we justify continuing to do something that is objectively wrong when we are explicitly told “One may not do evil so that good may result from it”? (CCC 1756)

It seems more reasonable to infer that more is meant than was said, that what is referred to as “this situation” was not merely the outward appearance of a second marriage, but a marriage involving acts that are normal to married couples. That is, it included both the aspect of the second marriage as well as adulterous relations within it.

Whether you accept this explanation or not, it is clear that for the “situation” to change what is required is not divorce but abstinence.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That the word is not used does not affect the meaning of the statement. It can be inferred from what was said.
We agree that marriage is unbreakable; what we disagree on is whether that is the law that Ratzinger was referring to.
I disagreed with your assertion that “This is not primarily about Natural Law (adultery) but about Canon Law.” …
Ender

Ender we have probably come as far as it is possible to go given your level of understanding of the moral theology framework assumed by Magisterial statements.

I summarise for you (and others who may be reading) the weakness of your position.
Your position is: that the remarried (without annulments) are in a state that is “objectively mortally sinful.” This, theologically, necessarily means that if they wilfully continue to cohabit knowing the above is a teaching of the Church … then they actually sin mortally and are damned.

Yet I have demonstrated that:
(a) No Magisterial document has ever used this phrase of such remarried. You invented it.
(b) Of the many libraries written by the Magisterium the **ONLY **text you can find to allegedly support your contention is a single sentence from Cardinal Ratzinger that he wrote in 1994.
(c) I have provided you a very reasonable demonstration that the meaning you are trying to extract from this sentence does not actually harmonise with the face meaning of the text.
Your response is that he never meant it to be analysed so closely .
(d) My analysis of Card Ratzinger’s text here leads me to conclude he sees the contravening of God’s Law (on the indissolubility of Marriage) by a 2nd marriage as intrinsically disordered but not always gravely so. Hence the objective “sin” is much like theft. It admits “parvity (smallness) of matter” under some conditions.

Consequently I conclude you have no basis whatsoever for stating that such remarriages are “objectively mortally sinful.” For to be such the matter MUST BE GRAVE ALWAYS.

Your final objection to my conclusion in (d) above is:

This seems like a reasonable argument, except that it runs counter to this:
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.

Certainly a “situation that objectively contravenes God’s law” is intrinsically disordered. Therefore there is no justification for arguing that it is OK to continue it, or that one’s good intention reduces its severity from a grave sin to a venial one.

Ender this comment is not logical.
It is standard moral theology that parvity (=smallness=non-grave) of objective matter (not good intention) reduces a mortal sin to a venial sin even when wilful.

Where did I say a “good intention” makes the ongoing wilfull cohabitation good? I didn’t.
I merely said the wilfulness does NOT MAKE IT AN IMPUTED MORTAL SIN. If the objective matter is light (ie not grave) and the intention wilful it is imputed venial sin only. Just like theft as I said.

Yes there is still an objective, scandalous (but not grave) disorder - that is why the Church’s discipline still does not allow Communion to the known remarried even if even not sexually active. It allows Communion in private if not sexually active…but that certainly doesn’t mean the cohabitation is “OK”! How can it be if its objectively disordered!! However receiving Communion is not incompatible with ongoing wilful and present venial sins as I am sure you are aware.

You keep grasping at theological or interpretative straws to make your view “work”.
It isn’t necessary, everything fits into place harmoniously if you can accept that the objective state of the remarried is intrinsically disordered…but not gravely so. The state allows for “parvity of matter”, just like theft.

Just as the objective matter of a wilful theft is no longer grave if the taking of the property in question is not great … so too with the wilful cohabiting with someone not your wife. There are conditions that make the objective transgression “small” and so the sin (if imputable) venial only.

 

[Ender]

Ender we have probably come as far as it is possible to go given your level of understanding of the moral theology framework assumed by Magisterial statements.

This is not a problem of moral theology but of understanding the meaning of a particular passage. It requires less theology than English comprehension and logic.

I summarise for you (and others who may be reading) the weakness of your position.
Your position is: that the remarried (without annulments) are in a state that is “objectively mortally sinful.” This, theologically, necessarily means that if they wilfully continue to cohabit knowing the above is a teaching of the Church … then they actually sin mortally and are damned.

I’m glad you summarized what you thought I meant, because it clarifies a misunderstanding. That is not my position. Someone in a state of mortal sin cannot receive communion, yet we know that couples who have been civilly remarried may receive if they abstain from adultery. It is not the cohabitation that makes the sin mortal, it is the adultery.

Yet I have demonstrated that:
(a) No Magisterial document has ever used this phrase of such remarried. You invented it.

Nor has any document ever used the phrase you developed. You invented it as well, or, more accurately, we have reached different conclusions about a phrase that contains an ambiguity.

(b) Of the many libraries written by the Magisterium the **ONLY **text you can find to allegedly support your contention is a single sentence from Cardinal Ratzinger that he wrote in 1994.

Not exactly. This is pretty much as Magisterial as it gets. I consider it pretty supportive.CCC 1650* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.*

(c) I have provided you a very reasonable demonstration that the meaning you are trying to extract from this sentence does not actually harmonise with the face meaning of the text.

The problem is that the plain meaning of the text is simply incorrect if we understand “this situation” to mean the civil marriage. We both recognize that some people in civil marriages in fact can receive communion, so either the statement is false (a conclusion we both reject)…or “this situation” means something other than “remarried civilly.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

(d) My analysis of Card Ratzinger’s text here leads me to conclude he sees the contravening of God’s Law (on the indissolubility of Marriage) by a 2nd marriage as intrinsically disordered but not always gravely so. Hence the objective “sin” is much like theft. It admits “parvity (smallness) of matter” under some conditions.

This conclusion directly contradicts the text. The actual words leave no room for the exception you require. Again, the entire controversy goes to the meaning of the phrase “this situation.” This is the point on which we disagree.

Consequently I conclude you have no basis whatsoever for stating that such remarriages are “objectively mortally sinful.” For to be such the matter MUST BE GRAVE ALWAYS.

The basis for stating that “this situation” is objectively mortally sinful is the fact that it explicitly excludes someone from receiving communion. Let me be as clear as possible: I never said that remarriage is always objectively gravely sinful, as obviously that is not the case. What is always objectively gravely sinful, however, is adultery. It is the adulterous relations that prevent communion, not the civil marriage.

I merely said the wilfulness does NOT MAKE IT AN IMPUTED MORTAL SIN. If the objective matter is light (ie not grave) and the intention wilful it is imputed venial sin only.

I understand this. So tell me: what is the meaning of “this situation”? What situation is being referred to here and how does the situation change to allow communion when it disallowed it before? I think if we focus on this point we may make some progress.

You keep grasping at theological or interpretative straws to make your view “work”.

As I said, I consider this less a theological analysis than one of English comprehension.

It isn’t necessary, everything fits into place harmoniously if you can accept that the objective state of the remarried is intrinsically disordered…but not gravely so.

I accept that. That has never been my objection. It is the adultery that is intrinsically, gravely disordered, and what prevents communion. It is also what is meant by “this situation.”

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I never said that remarriage is always objectively gravely sinful… What is always objectively gravely sinful, however, is adultery. It is the adulterous relations that prevent communion, not the civil marriage.

…" this situation" means something other than “remarried civilly.”

“…what is referred to as “this situation” was not merely the outward appearance of a second marriage, but a marriage involving acts that are normal to married couples. That is … adulterous relations within it.”

Oh dear, it looks like we need to relitigate what I thought we had clarified in post #457… you appear to be sliding away from the positions you took back then.

But lets first cease the partisan cherry-picking of abbreviated quotes from Card Ratzinger (or the Catechism that quotes him) with the complete CCC article text so as to gain contextual insight to solve your apparent contradiction accurately:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” - 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. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

And as I requested in post #457 below:

First, would you mind clearly defining what “Law of God” here is objectively contravened?

Second, what essentially is the “situation” here that objectively contravenes “Gods Law”.

.

Third, why do you so quickly assume that the sexual activity in a 2nd marriage is always correctly identified as “adultery” when the Magisterium itself goes out of its way to avoid such objective identification of those acts?