Pope Francis on Divorce and Remarriage

[Veridical16]

A recent news article on the issue:
"Pope Francis “tells ‘sinner’ she should be allowed Communion”

In what would be a break from Catholic teaching, Pope said to have phoned remarried Argentine woman Jacqui Lisbona telling her ‘nothing wrong’ in her taking Holy Communion"

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-divorced-woman-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html

That story sounds like irresponsible journalism and bad Catholics taking advantage of the Pope’s famous phone calls.
Doesn’t sound legitimate to me.

The Pope is not above God, and there is no way Pope Francis would behave that way. This is just people exploiting his previous generosity of charity where he and they are lying about him. Now we are supposed to believe Church teaching hinges on phone calls that may or may not have taken place.

“It is an issue we are discussing in the Vatican, because a divorcee who takes communion is not doing anything wrong,”

What’s the point of discussions for October, if Pope francis “reportedly” said and already determined a conclusion to the discussions that have yet to take place?

This more of the same where people trample on Pope Francis’ generosity, the same way Scalfari did.

The surprising exchange was first revealed by Mrs Lisbona’s husband, Julio Sabetta, who said he first answered the call from the Pope, before handing the phone to his wife.

“One of the most wonderful things in my life has just happened – receiving a telephone call from none other than Papa Francesco,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

“We’re Catholics,** we believe in God, and though we don’t go to Mass every Sunday, every evening we thank the Lord for our family and our work**,” Mr Sabetta, a pastry chef, said.

If not divorce,
Maybe someone should tell them they can’t receive communion for being in a state of mortal sin for deliberately missing Mass on Sunday.

So divorce, adultery, missing mass,
Possibly exploitative Calumny against the Roman Pontiff…

So I’m supposed to be scandalized and trust in the altering of Church Teaching, based on this couple’s credibility via agenda driven journalism?

when that statement by the husband about knowingly missing mass, in spite of a priest already telling them the true teaching? Confirms they still have publicly deliberate malice and negligence against God and his Church.

More confirmation that article does not pass the smell test.

The phone call from the Pope came six months after Mrs Lisbona sent her letter to him. Introducing himself as “Father Bergoglio”

In a rebuke to the local priest who refused her the Sacrament, he added:** “There are some priests who are more papist than the Pope.” **

Because a Priest upholds the teaching of Christ, he’s more of a papist?

 

[McCall1981]

A recent news article on the issue:
"Pope Francis “tells ‘sinner’ she should be allowed Communion”

In what would be a break from Catholic teaching, Pope said to have phoned remarried Argentine woman Jacqui Lisbona telling her ‘nothing wrong’ in her taking Holy Communion"

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-divorced-woman-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html

There’s a little more info on the story here, from Vatican Insider:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-divorziati-divorced-divorciados-33653

The Vatican wouldn’t confirm or deny the story, they just said it was a private phone call.

Also, apparently the woman involved is not divorced herself, it’s the man she is married to who has been married before.

Not sure what to make of this story other than that it is very frightening.

 

[Veridical16]

There’s a little more info on the story here, from Vatican Insider:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-divorziati-divorced-divorciados-33653

The Vatican wouldn’t confirm or deny the story, they just said it was a private phone call.

Also, apparently** the woman involved is not divorced herself**, it’s the man she is married to who has been married before.

But it is a misinterpretation because the person the Pope spoke with was not divorced as was originally believed. “It’s not me who’s divorced,” one of the female protagonists in this story said in an interview with Buenos Aires radio station La Red Am910.

The woman deserves even in less pity than those who are divorced and practicing, she’s basically an enabler to the husband, and she would be secondary to the individuals that the “discussions” would be talking about as she is not in question in her participation of adultery. Objectively speaking, being a complicit cohabitating, single adulteress has less to do with the situation of Catholics who are divorcees striving to be faithful.

What the Holy father is accused of behaving as, also goes contrary to other reports where other Bishops were not convinced by Cardinal Kasper who is a proponent for this heterodox consideration of allowing “communion”

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/criticism-mounts-over-cardinal-kaspers-speech-on-divorce-and-remarriage

“We used to go to mass

The woman also said she tried taking Communion again last year but not only did the local priest apparently say he could not give her Communion, he even said she could not access the sacrament of Confession either. “[They told me that] when I went home, I resumed a life of sin,” she added. The woman finally decided to write to Pope Francis to explain her situation to him. The letter was sent last September.
“The phone rang and my husband answered. It was Fr. Bergoglio calling. The father asked to speak to me and my husband asked: ‘who’s calling?’, to which the voice replied ‘Fr. Bergoglio’.
"This received too much public attention. He told me to go and take Communion in a different parish, but now I won’t be able to go anywhere.”
She also** revealed an interesting fact**: the priest who apparently refused to administer Communion to her, no longer exercises his ministry. He asked to be dispensed from his obligations as priest so he could get married.

The report reads like an obstinate woman who is a blabbermouth, wreckless with her words hurling accusations against clergy, that may or may not be true.
She can’t receive communion based on deliberately failing her Sunday obligation alone, let alone being advised in the confessional what to do, and refusing to do it.

Not sure what to make of this story other than that it is very frightening.

There is nothing to be frightened about. The teachings on divorce are clear. And the Pope is the Pope.

St. John of the Cross "How to avoid being scandalized"

youtube.com/watch?v=G4Rj3r30pCI

 

[Veridical16]

So… the Church has already vacillated on this teaching? Perhaps this is even more reason to question the ‘indefectibility’ of the Church.

The point is: 1. what exactly does Natural Law teach? and 2. Does the Pope have the authority to change Natural Law?

No She did not vacillitate, that is just bad scholarship in order to justify the schism of the Orthodox and their lack of charity to the Office of Peter.

1. Natural LAW is the law written in our hearts. According to our nature and being.
2. NO, the pope is not above the Law, he merely has authority and governance on Church matters, he has no jurisdiction over what is written over his heart, and all of mankind’s hearts. He can’t declare God to be wrong, he can only bind and loose disciplines, small t tradition, infallibly protect the deposit of the Faith, and he is a custodian to the keys for the True Head of the Church,* which is Christ*.
   Just as Pope John Paul II said, on women priests, even if I personally wanted it, ***“it was not in the mind of CHRIST” ***
   Scripture is clear; God hates divorce. Matt 19

Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning

And even if that argument supposed

Eastern Orthodox say that they have allowed divorce and remarriage from earliest times including when they were in union with Rome, and they did not hear of any objection to this policy from Rome before 1054.

were so, (which is questionable because the poster does not cite sources and information to back up his claim)
Just because the Church at times does not feel the need to address something that is clear and apparent for centuries among those who understood it to be so.
Because of an apparent break in 1054, of course the Church would speak up more?
That is the point of many Councils, to address HERESY and ERROR.
So why should we be surprised when those in error who embrace the error say,* “well, you’re only bringing that up now because we’re promoting it” *

Anyway, it is not accurate. Early Church Teaching on Divorce

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/divorce-early-church-teaching.html

There are quotes from St Justin Martyr , Ignatius of Antioch and other Church Fathers and more.

Council of Elvira

“Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive communion”

(canon 8 [A.D. 300]).

"Likewise, a woman of the faith * who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not at any more receive communion–unless he that she has left has since departed from this world"*

(ibid., canon 9).

That argument supposed from the Eastern Orthodox is not so different from Protestants, where the Church has consistently taught the discipline of favoring celibacy, but because of it not being overtly expressed at times, false claims arise that*" oh it only started in much later centuries"* when in fact when one examines Church history, from the very early Church there are numerous historical references for the priests to be celibate.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32579

associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/celibacy-in-the-catholic-church-a-brief-history/

 

[McCall1981]

An interesting perspective from the Canon Law Blog:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/these-days-it-helps-to-be-from-missouri/

"Canon 915… covers Catholics who are themselves free to marry but who enter purely civil marriages with other persons who are not free to marry.

The canonically correct advice to a Catholic in such a situation (outside of a few very rare circumstances which there is no reason to think are relevant to this case) is to refrain from seeking holy Communion per Canon 916, and to ministers in such cases to withhold administering holy Communion per Canon 915.

If, on these facts, a Catholic nevertheless approaches for holy Communion or if a minister nevertheless administers holy Communion, that act is on his or her conscience."

 

[ARSpade]

Certainly hope this isn’t a Matthew 18:6-7 type thing.

To be snarky, if the Church decides that divorce and remarriage is no big thing, despite Jesus calling it out, how logically could you argue that other mortal sins should keep you from communion?

 

[Teelynn]

There’s a little more info on the story here, from Vatican Insider:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-divorziati-divorced-divorciados-33653

The Vatican wouldn’t confirm or deny the story, they just said it was a private phone call.

Also, apparently the woman involved is not divorced herself, it’s the man she is married to who has been married before.

Not sure what to make of this story other than that it is very frightening.

Yep, correct, the phone call did in fact take place, but (and this is a BIG BUT) no one knows exactly what was said. The Vatican would not comment. I read Jimmy Atkin on this story, and he said (if in fact Francis did say she could receive communion) we don’t know the details at all of the first marriage, or if they would constitute an ok to receive communion. Turns out it was her husband that was married prior…but was he married in the Church? And/or…does that make a difference? Was the marriage forced? Did it last maybe 3 weeks? Does any of that make a difference? If in fact it may, would Francis really give an ok without this couple going through a legitimate annulment process? We know he does not stand on formalities, but???

Lots and lots of questions…no answers…yet

 

[Teelynn]

A BIG question I have is: If being fully integrated in the Church is important to this couple, why haven’t they sought an annulment? Why not go through proper channels if this first marriage was a sham marriage in some way?

 

[Teelynn]

That story sounds like irresponsible journalism and bad Catholics taking advantage of the Pope’s famous phone calls.
Doesn’t sound legitimate to me.

The Pope is not above God, and there is no way Pope Francis would behave that way. This is just people exploiting his previous generosity of charity where he and they are lying about him. Now we are supposed to believe Church teaching hinges on phone calls that may or may not have taken place.

What’s the point of discussions for October, if Pope francis “reportedly” said and already determined a conclusion to the discussions that have yet to take place?

This more of the same where people trample on Pope Francis’ generosity, the same way Scalfari did.

If not divorce,

Maybe someone should tell them they can’t receive communion for being in a state of mortal sin for deliberately missing Mass on Sunday.

So divorce, adultery, missing mass,
Possibly exploitative Calumny against the Roman Pontiff…

So I’m supposed to be scandalized and trust in the altering of Church Teaching, based on this couple’s credibility via agenda driven journalism?

when that statement by the husband about knowingly missing mass, in spite of a priest already telling them the true teaching? Confirms they still have publicly deliberate malice and negligence against God and his Church.

More confirmation that article does not pass the smell test.

Because a Priest upholds the teaching of Christ, he’s more of a papist?

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s little more info from Fr. Rosica:

"A Vatican spokesman confirmed the telephone call but would not comment on the conversation’s content.

“It’s between the Pope and the woman,” said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant for the Vatican press office.

Rosica said that any comments made by the Pope should not be construed as a change in church doctrine. “The magisterium of the church is not defined by personal phone calls.”

The Pope told Jacqueline Sabetta that the Vatican would be discussing its Communion restrictions, according to her husband.

Pope Francis and other top Vatican leaders have said the issue will be discussed at a gathering of bishops from around the world in October. The Pope was not pre-empting that debate, according to Rosica.

“To draw any conclusions about this particular situation, that the Pope may be setting an agenda, is incorrect,” he said. “The Pope is first and foremost an esteemed pastor, and dealing with a human situation is always complex.”

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/23/popes-stirs-communion-debate-with-call-to-woman/?hpt=hp_t2

 

[ProVobis]

Certainly hope this isn’t a Matthew 18:6-7 type thing.

To be snarky, if the Church decides that divorce and remarriage is no big thing, despite Jesus calling it out, how logically could you argue that other mortal sins should keep you from communion?

That’s what I’m thinking too. Society seems to glamorize a whole bunch of things not exactly in line with the Ten Commandments nor the precepts of the Church.

 

[Vico]

Eastern Orthodox say that they have allowed divorce and remarriage from earliest times including when they were in union with Rome, and they did not hear of any objection to this policy from Rome before 1054.

Hermas (80 A.D.):“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery”
Tertullian (~ 160-225 A.D.) held that the marital bond is indissoluble.

St. Augustine (254-430 A.D.) taught that remarriage is adultery unless the original spouse dies.

Jerome (396 A.D.):“Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives”
Later, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.), in Summa Theologica, described what became the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on marriage and divorce.

awildvoice.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/quotes-from-the-early-church-fathers-on-divorce-and-remarriage/

 

[canis73]

There’s a little more info on the story here, from Vatican Insider:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-divorziati-divorced-divorciados-33653

The Vatican wouldn’t confirm or deny the story, they just said it was a private phone call.

Also, apparently the woman involved is not divorced herself, it’s the man she is married to who has been married before.

Not sure what to make of this story other than that it is very frightening.

I live in Argentina. According to local media, the one who talked with the Holy Father was the divorced husband. Who is now speaking on behalf of his wife (rather strange to think The HF would allow communion to the woman, through her hubby). Myself, as a vast majority of my fellow countrymen, do not believe the Pope would say anything remotely similar to what is being claimed. What does seem to be the true message, as also stated by the man, is that the vatican will be reviewing some topics concerning marriage, (which is the whole point of this thread)

 

[McCall1981]

I live in Argentina.** According to local media, the one who talked with the Holy Father was the divorced husband. Who is now speaking on behalf of his wife (rather strange to think The HF would allow communion to the woman, through her hubby). Myself, as a vast majority of my fellow countrymen, do not believe the Pope would say anything remotely similar to what is being claimed. **What does seem to be the true message, as also stated by the man, is that the vatican will be reviewing some topics concerning marriage, (which is the whole point of this thread)

Thanks for this.

That’s interesting that theyre saying it was the husband he talked to. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[Tomdstone]

No She did not vacillitate, that is just bad scholarship in order to justify the schism of the Orthodox and their lack of charity to the Office of Peter.

1. Natural LAW is the law written in our hearts. According to our nature and being.
2. NO, the pope is not above the Law, he merely has authority and governance on Church matters, he has no jurisdiction over what is written over his heart, and all of mankind’s hearts. He can’t declare God to be wrong, he can only bind and loose disciplines, small t tradition, infallibly protect the deposit of the Faith, and he is a custodian to the keys for the True Head of the Church,* which is Christ*.
   Just as Pope John Paul II said, on women priests, even if I personally wanted it, ***“it was not in the mind of CHRIST” ***
   Scripture is clear; God hates divorce. Matt 19

And even if that argument supposed

were so, (which is questionable because the poster does not cite sources and information to back up his claim)
Just because the Church at times does not feel the need to address something that is clear and apparent for centuries among those who understood it to be so.
Because of an apparent break in 1054, of course the Church would speak up more?
That is the point of many Councils, to address HERESY and ERROR.
So why should we be surprised when those in error who embrace the error say,* “well, you’re only bringing that up now because we’re promoting it” *

Anyway, it is not accurate. Early Church Teaching on Divorce

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/divorce-early-church-teaching.html

There are quotes from St Justin Martyr , Ignatius of Antioch and other Church Fathers and more.

(ibid., canon 9).

That argument supposed from the Eastern Orthodox is not so different from Protestants, where the Church has consistently taught the discipline of favoring celibacy, but because of it not being overtly expressed at times, false claims arise that*" oh it only started in much later centuries"* when in fact when one examines Church history, from the very early Church there are numerous historical references for the priests to be celibate.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32579

associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/celibacy-in-the-catholic-church-a-brief-history/

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).
See: stgeorgegoc.org/divorceChurchHistory.html

 

[Tigg]

Yep, correct, the phone call did in fact take place, but (and this is a BIG BUT) no one knows exactly what was said. The Vatican would not comment.

And given the scandalous nature of this story and the fact that there is NO comment or refutation, is the most disturbing of all.

 

[Tigg]

So… the Church has already vacillated on this teaching? Perhaps this is even more reason to question the ‘indefectibility’ of the Church.

No, No, No!

Faithful Catholics need to be very careful not to play into the hands of the enemy here. Fear and doubt and attempting to make us deny the words of Christ are the weapons they will use against us.

 

[ARSpade]

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).
See: stgeorgegoc.org/divorceChurchHistory.html

That link uses a lot of words to try to get around Christ’s simple words.

 

[McCall1981]

And given the scandalous nature of this story and the fact that there is NO comment or refutation, is the most disturbing of all.

I read Fr. Lonbardi’s statement as a refutation.

“That which has been communicated in relation to this matter…cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.”

It’s a very soft, vague refutation, and I sincerely wish it was stronger, but I do think its a refutation.

 

[Teelynn]

I read Fr. Lonbardi’s statement as a refutation.

“That which has been communicated in relation to this matter…cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.”

It’s a very soft, vague refutation, and I sincerely wish it was stronger, but I do think its a refutation.

Yes, it’s their idea of a refutation. What needs to be said is a simple reiteration of Church law on the matter. No one has to divulge personal conversations that the Pope has with people…they just have to come out with a reaffirmation of Church teaching. That would let the world know that the Church is not wavering on Doctrine. Until then …we wait. And in all actuality we do need to hear this from the Holy Father himself…not Fr. Lombardi nor any other Vatican Official…I do believe this needs to come from the horses mouth. That would definitely end the story.