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

[Ender]

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.

Pick another post. That one was your post asking me questions.

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:

Drop the aggrieved attitude. The only part of the complete section that is relevant is the part I cited. Nothing said preceding or following it alters its meaning in the slightest.

And as I requested in post #457 below:

My responses were in post #458.
.

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?

I guess I assumed this statement was accurate:*“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”
*Do we not believe this any more? Was its author wrong?

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Pick another post. That one was your post asking me questions.
Drop the aggrieved attitude. The only part of the complete section that is relevant is the part I cited. Nothing said preceding or following it alters its meaning in the slightest.
My responses were in post #458.
.I guess I assumed this statement was accurate:*“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”
*Do we not believe this any more? Was its author wrong?

Ender

Ender strong views require equally strong and clear understandings of the alleged authorities used to support those views.

It is becoming clear to me that you seem unwilling to commit yourself to clear answers to my straight forward questions re your understanding of the single quote from Card Ratz (and paraphrased by the Catechism) that alone supports your somewhat extreme view that the wilfully remarried who are sexually active are committing mortal sin and are damned.

I do not believe you have actually provided an answer to my 2nd question that connects.
Nor are “I suppose’s…” helpful. If you have a strong conclusion you need to have clear supporting understandings of the terms, surely?
Or do you only “suppose” that all the sexually active remarried are certainly damned if wilful in their ongoing cohabitation?

If you are unable to take a clear committed position on your interpretation of certain phrases in this single quote so it can be analysed for correctness…
and if you are unable to demonstrate any other supporting reference in the extensive writings of the Magisterium…
well readers can draw their own conclusions on the likelihood of your view being correct.

There is little more I can do to assist in a mutual search for truly objective critical thinking
on your somewhat unusual view of the remarried.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I guess I assumed this statement was accurate:*“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”
*Do we not believe this any more? Was its author wrong?

Ender

And I’d really appreciate it if you could drop the know-it-all tone .

In fact the sentence is ambiguous Ender. But if you keep up this closed attitude why would I waste my time trying to demonstrate the ambiguity to you? You won’t want to know so won’t have the true neutrality needed to understand my explanation…
Are you truly intellectually open to discussing this or not?

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not other members.

All posts must remain charitable

 

[Ender]

It is becoming clear to me that you seem unwilling to commit yourself to clear answers to my straight forward questions re your understanding of the single quote from Card Ratz (and paraphrased by the Catechism) that alone supports your somewhat extreme view that the wilfully remarried who are sexually active are committing mortal sin and are damned.

At least acknowledge that if it’s contained in the catechism it is what the church teaches. I don’t need to find it somewhere else to confirm that what it says is valid. This is the church’s doctrine on the subject.

We know that those who are civilly remarried and are sexually active are barred from receiving communion. We also know that venial sins do not prohibit someone from receiving, so if the remarried are explicitly excluded it can only be because they are guilty of a grave sin. Clearly that is the sin of adultery, and there is no doubt that the church considers it a mortal sin.

I do not believe you have actually provided an answer to my 2nd question that connects.

I don’t know what you refer to here. I thought I had replied to all of your questions.

Or do you only “suppose” that all the sexually active remarried are certainly damned if wilful in their ongoing cohabitation?

It is not up to me to determine who is damned. I can state, however, that people in the circumstances you describe are in a state of grave sin, and will face the consequences of their choices.

If you are unable to take a clear committed position on your interpretation of certain phrases in this single quote so it can be analysed for correctness…

The only ambiguity in that section of the catechism is the phrase “this situation”. If we assume it to mean those who were civilly remarried after a divorce and are sexually active, then the “situation that directly contravenes God’s law”, and prohibits them from receiving communion is adultery, is grave, and hardly requires any more interpretation.

if you are unable to demonstrate any other supporting reference in the extensive writings of the Magisterium…
well readers can draw their own conclusions on the likelihood of your view being correct.

No other references are required. I think most people would accept that something found in the catechism is true. If the identical statement is in the catechism as well as a document by someone who himself became a pope, why would other references be required?

Ender

 

[Wildgraywolf]

The pope has said nothing that contradicts in any way the teachings of the Church. Divorced and remarried Catholics are most welcome to come to church. However, they still cannot receive the sacraments anywhere as long as they are living outside the teachings of the church. If a priest did tell someone to go to another parish to receive any of the sacraments, then the priest is acting outside the teachings of the church and he is wrong. He’s basically telling them to go sin somewhere else.