Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion' [Phony news story ?]

[Prodigal_Son]

The things a person says or writes and the tone of the expression reveal things about their hidden selves.

Whenever there is spiritual disorder in a soul it will manifest itself outwardly sooner or later in one way or another.

Conscience convicts us, but when there is disorder we try to still its voice.

Augustine wrote that the consequence of a disordered soul is a disordered soul. We have all known spiritual disorder of one form or another.

Jesus said whoever sins is a slave to sin. A slave does what his master commands. He can not make himself free. Am I enslaved today or free?

He called the Pharisees whited sepluchres. The outside was nice and shiny and the inside corrupt. They talked a good game about religion and thought about it all the time. He said of them that He knew the love of God was not in them. He condemned them for being hypocrites. He said to them that He knew they would die in their sins, meaning go to hell.

Sin is in us until it is not. When it is in us we try to tell ourselves we are ok. We try to justify ourselves. It doesn’t work.

What we all hope for one another is that we find mercy. We don’t want anyone to die in their sins.

Sacramental confession really works. The enemy tries to keep us from it. Experience tells me this is true, my own and what is evident in other sinners like me.

I agree with everything you wrote here, and I agree that I’m a sinner. I am also fortunate enough to be washed with the blood of the Lamb, and His mercy for me constantly astonishes me.

My intent here was never to minimize other people’s sins or to justify my own sins. I genuinely have a disagreement with other Catholics on the issue of how we treat remarriage, just as the Eastern Orthodox have a disagreement with Catholics on this issue. At any rate, I appreciate your desire to help me come to terms with my own sins, though I don’t really think this is the proper forum for it.

 

[thomasemmanuel]

Wouldn’t you consider, purely as a matter of compassion, that divorce and re-marriage in some cases should be permitted?

For example, where the divorcee has been subject to years of constant physical abuse by his/her spouse.

It’s all very well and good to say that the marriage is an unbreakable bond because it was sanctioned by God. But I’m not sure that God would be happy to see His child suffering in a loveless and abusive marriage.

One could also say that the abused person should just live apart from the abusive spouse, but not be entitled to remarry. But should a person be deprived of the chance to enter into loving communion with someone else, simply because he/she had the poor luck of first having married a scumbag?

 

[JimG]

The first thing to consider is: do we believe Jesus’ words about marriage? What God has joined, no man can separate.

There are several possibilities.

1. We believe that a Christian marriage, validly contracted and consummated, is permanent. That does not rule out civil divorce. Divorce can be necessary to get out of an abusive situation. But it doesn’t end the marriage if it was valid from the beginning.
2. We might believe that marriage **can **be dissolved by man. We might believe that it can be dissolved by the abusive or sinful action of one or both parties. The Church has never taken that position. Or we might believe that the Church itself has the power to dissolve a valid consummated marriage between Christians. Here again, the Church has never claimed to have that power.
3. We might believe that a marriage may appear to have been valid, but was actually not, due to a defect in intent or consent at the beginning. In such a case, one has to investigate the circumstances present from the beginning to determine whether the conditions for validity were in fact present. It’s that possibility that makes marriage tribunals possible.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The first thing to consider is: do we believe Jesus’ words about marriage? What God has joined, no man can separate.

There are several possibilities.

1. We believe that a Christian marriage, validly contracted and consummated, is permanent. That does not rule out civil divorce. Divorce can be necessary to get out of an abusive situation. But it doesn’t end the marriage if it was valid from the beginning.
2. We might believe that marriage **can **be dissolved by man. We might believe that it can be dissolved by the abusive or sinful action of one or both parties. The Church has never taken that position. Or we might believe that the Church itself has the power to dissolve a valid consummated marriage between Christians. Here again, the Church has never claimed to have that power.
3. We might believe that a marriage may appear to have been valid, but was actually not, due to a defect in intent or consent at the beginning. In such a case, one has to investigate the circumstances present from the beginning to determine whether the conditions for validity were in fact present. It’s that possibility that makes marriage tribunals possible.

As far as #2 goes, the question would appear to be what the meaning of “porneia” is in Matthew 5, since Jesus seems to allow there that porneia is an exception to the ordinary fixed nature of marriage. Often, this word is translated as “unfaithfulness” or “fornication”. The Greek word actually means something like “severe sexual immorality”. My understanding is that the Church does not have such a qualification on marriage, unless one spouse was in serious and undisclosed sexual sin when entering into the marriage. So I have always wondered what the Church teaches about “porneia” in this passage, because the passage seems to straightforwardly allow for divorce in this extraordinary case.

Mind you, that one exception would be miles away from a sort of carte-blanche license for anybody who wants to to divorce and remarry. And to clarify for people on this thread, my goal in questioning here is to understand. I do not assume that the Church’s teaching in this one particular is correct, for the Eastern Orthodox church teaches differently, and I have profound respect for the Eastern Orthodox church. But my goal is to understand, not to criticize – as Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”

The second thing, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is that I am concerned about how the Church responds to the possibility of a Church tribunal being in error about a particular case. This is not a doctrinal issue, and both Benedict and Francis seem to take this issue quite seriously.

 

[shelby_sun]

What are your thought on the Church full of infallible people deciding which marriage should be annulled and which one should not? Those who cannot get an annulment must live out their lives without a partner for the rest of their life.

 

[JimG]

Here is an article from Catholic Answers magazine about the matter, which goes into somewhat more detail than I would endeavor.

If infidelity following the establishment of a valid marriage could really end the marriage, then it would seem to make the matter pretty straight forward. “Can’t get along with your wife? Sorry, that’s not a reason for dissolving the marriage, but if you commit adultery, then it’s ended.” So it would actually provide an incentive for adultery as a means of terminating a marrage at will.

It really does seem to me that the common understanding of marriage, even among Catholics, has become so defective in recent decades, and the intentions of the parties so often muddled, that there really are a greater number of putative marriages lacking proper intention and consent from the beginning. I think the proper response should be to remedy any defective intent and renew the vows, rather than divorce.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

 

[Veridical16]

Here is an article from Catholic Answers magazine about the matter, which goes into somewhat more detail than I would endeavor.

If infidelity following the establishment of a valid marriage could really end the marriage, then it would seem to make the matter pretty straight forward. “Can’t get along with your wife? Sorry, that’s not a reason for dissolving the marriage, but if you commit adultery, then it’s ended.” **So it would actually provide an incentive for adultery as a means of terminating a marrage at will. **

It really does seem to me that the common understanding of marriage, even among Catholics, has become so defective in recent decades, and the intentions of the parties so often muddled, that there really are a greater number of putative marriages lacking proper intention and consent from the beginning. I think the proper response should be to remedy any defective intent and renew the vows, rather than divorce.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

well said.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Here is an article from Catholic Answers magazine about the matter, which goes into somewhat more detail than I would endeavor.

If infidelity following the establishment of a valid marriage could really end the marriage, then it would seem to make the matter pretty straight forward. “Can’t get along with your wife? Sorry, that’s not a reason for dissolving the marriage, but if you commit adultery, then it’s ended.” So it would actually provide an incentive for adultery as a means of terminating a marrage at will.

This is an interesting point. In Jesus’s day, no woman would have ever considered committing adultery for practical reasons, since adultery could get you stoned, and adultery would sabotage all future financial stability, married or unmarried. But, so far as I understand it, men were not subject to such recriminations – indeed, one could make an argument that Christianity was the only Mediterranean religion to require sexual fidelity on the man’s part. Even Judaism (arguably) did not make such an insistence. Does anyone know if I’m right about this?

As such, Jesus’s words about marriage in Matthew 5 seem to be mostly addressed to men, in a society where female infidelity was a serious taboo. This could be reason for the Church to ignore the porneia clause, I suppose – though I expect there is a more theologically rooted reason, too.

It really does seem to me that the common understanding of marriage, even among Catholics, has become so defective in recent decades, and the intentions of the parties so often muddled, that there really are a greater number of putative marriages lacking proper intention and consent from the beginning. I think the proper response should be to remedy any defective intent and renew the vows, rather than divorce.

Amen to that.

The teaching in 1 Cor. 7:10–11, by the way, that a husband must under no circumstances divorce his wife, is pretty clearly rooted in basic Christian decency. For a Roman-era husband to divorce his wife would be to leave her completely disenfranchised and abandoned. This is shown by the lack of parallelism, and two different words used for “divorce” here. The wife is said not to “withdraw” from the husband. The husband is told not to “send away” the wife.

 

[JimG]

The teaching in 1 Cor. 7:10–11, by the way, that a husband must under no circumstances divorce his wife, is pretty clearly rooted in basic Christian decency. For a Roman-era husband to divorce his wife would be to leave her completely disenfranchised and abandoned. This is shown by the lack of parallelism, and two different words used for “divorce” here. The wife is said not to “withdraw” from the husband. The husband is told not to “send away” the wife.

Even today, if a husband abandons his wife, it often leaves his wife and children in poverty or likely to be poor.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Even today, if a husband abandons his wife, it often leaves his wife and children in poverty or likely to be poor.

Very true. Since I live in Detroit, I’ve sadly have the chance to see the collateral damage of this many times.

 

[shelby_sun]

Here is an article from Catholic Answers magazine about the matter, which goes into somewhat more detail than I would endeavor.

If infidelity following the establishment of a valid marriage could really end the marriage, then it would seem to make the matter pretty straight forward. “Can’t get along with your wife? Sorry, that’s not a reason for dissolving the marriage, but if you commit adultery, then it’s ended.” So it would actually provide an incentive for adultery as a means of terminating a marrage at will.

It really does seem to me that the common understanding of marriage, even among Catholics, has become so defective in recent decades, and the intentions of the parties so often muddled, that there really are a greater number of putative marriages lacking proper intention and consent from the beginning. I think the proper response should be to remedy any defective intent and renew the vows, rather than divorce.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-jesus-allow-divorce

Thank you for the article; however, I still wondering if the Catholic Church really believes with the millions of Catholic marriage out there, if they truly think that all of them should or could survive in the world today just from following their Catholic faith To me that is like saying that a person should be happy in the first job he ever accepted and never leave, especially if he had prayed to God to guide him in what job he selected.

Now I know that is too simplistic a comparison, but people and circumstances change over time. In my case, my husband had no idea what he was getting into with my family situation no matter how I tried to explain it to him. The school that my children ended up going to was a similar situation. These are things he was had no skills to deal with and it has destroyed are marriage. We are still together but at a great cost to myself and our children: however I would still never say our marriage should be annulled if we divorce some day, which honestly I am praying God gives me the strength to do soon. I believe God’s understanding and forgiveness is bigger than The Church, which is made up of fallible men. They cannot know everything or they themselves would be God. Being inspired by God does not mean everything they say is absolutely correct every time.

For myself, I have never and will never feel worthy of being saved. I am shocked when I see how many feel they are. When I look up on that cross how could I ever feel that worthy? How could anyone?

 

[JimG]

Thank you for the article; however, I still wondering if the Catholic Church really believes with the millions of Catholic marriage out there, if they truly think that all of them should or could survive in the world today just from following their Catholic faith To me that is like saying that a person should be happy in the first job he ever accepted and never leave, especially if he had prayed to God to guide him in what job he selected.

Now I know that is too simplistic a comparison, but people and circumstances change over time. In my case, my husband had no idea what he was getting into with my family situation no matter how I tried to explain it to him. The school that my children ended up going to was a similar situation. These are things he was had no skills to deal with and it has destroyed are marriage. We are still together but at a great cost to myself and our children: however I would still never say our marriage should be annulled if we divorce some day, which honestly I am praying God gives me the strength to do soon. I believe God’s understanding and forgiveness is bigger than The Church, which is made up of fallible men. They cannot know everything or they themselves would be God. Being inspired by God does not mean everything they say is absolutely correct every time.

For myself, I have never and will never feel worthy of being saved. I am shocked when I see how many feel they are. When I look up on that cross how could I ever feel that worthy? How could anyone?

Well, the fact is, no one is worthy of being saved. That is the scary part, and also the beautiful part, because not even the worst sins can exclude us from salvation. Abortionists can be saved. Serial murderers can be saved. Serial adulterers and fornicators can be saved. There is no sexual sin or any other sin which will keep us out of heaven if repented of. Last Sunday was Divine Mercy Sunday, celebrating the abundance of God’s mercy.

I’ve lived a long time, and it seems to me just from observation that the sexual revolution, along with the advent of relativism and extreme personalism, made marriage a lot more difficult—and a lot more difficult even to enter into with the proper frame of mind.

When I was growing up, the expectation of everyone I knew—Catholics, Protestants, Jewish, non-believers, was simply that marriage would be for life. No one I knew then, ever entered marriage with anything but an intention of permanence. In my neighborhood, among all my neighbors of various faiths or no faith, divorce simply did not occur. It was not on anyone’s list of the possible. All during my grade school and high school years, none of the kids I knew had divorced parents. That fact alone has now drastically changed, and that fact alone will alter those kids expectations of their own marriages.

But an expectation of permanence is no longer the case. People go into marriage with certain expectations, and not necessarily expectations of fidelity, permanence, and openness to life.

Back then, one took the words ‘for better or worse’ quite literally, for one never knew what might happen. Anything might happen, but whatever happened, the married couple would be in it together. That is no longer the expectation. People marry with good intentions but, as you say, with incomplete knowledge, unrealistic expectations, and perhaps less than permanent commitment.

I can’t judge anyone else’s marriage because I sure don’t know all the circumstances. You sound like a heroic person to me. I will pray for you that things will work out in whatever way God intends.

 

[shelby_sun]

Thank you Mr. Jim. Yes the world has changed quite a bit in the last fifty years. My parents were one of the few divorced couple of all the people I went to high school with, but again it didn’t happen soon enough.

I do not sit down and read the Bible like many do when they need guidance. God knows my heart, my mind, my soul, but most of all knows everything about my personal situation, which is not like any story in the Bible. So I sit, pray, and truly try to let God guide me to where HE thinks I need to be. You sound like you have a very kind soul.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I do not sit down and read the Bible like many do when they need guidance. God knows my heart, my mind, my soul, but most of all knows everything about my personal situation, which is not like any story in the Bible. So I sit, pray, and truly try to let God guide me to where HE thinks I need to be. You sound like you have a very kind soul.

With all due respect, Shelby, Scripture is one of the tests that we have to verify that the voice we hear when we pray is truly God’s. There are other powers capable of lying to us, telling us things designed to distort God’s word in our lives – and these powers can reach us even when we are praying. When we compare what we hear in the privacy of our hearts to God’s revealed word in Scripture, it helps us to stay on track.

 

[marymary1975]

I am very familiar with the Jesuits. They way they live the Faith is distinctively theirs.

But it remains the same Faith, the same beliefs. The Jesuits do no maintain a concept of sin and redemption that is separate from that of the Church.

So it does not matter that the Pope is a Jesuit, or Franciscan, or Dominican or Secular. What is sinful remains sinful, what is damaging to the soul remains damaging to the soul. The theological philosophy of any Pope does not, and cannot not, change that.

Thank you for saying my exact thoughts. And yeah I am very familiar with Jesuits. The fact that some Jesuits have theological errors (Anthony demello and many Jesuits have been reprimanded) does not make them a different faith. Their concept of sin is the same and the precepts are the same. It is the same faith with the same doctrine. Also I am from Latin america so I am much more familiar with Jesuits from Latin America and the pope himself before being pope as he was very well know in Latin America specially during the dictatorship and I even heard several of his homilies when he was bishop of Buenos Aires. His concept of sin is the same as the church what happens is that the media is constantly trying to misquote him or mistranslating to try to pusk liberalism in the church.

 

[marymary1975]

I am very familiar with the Jesuits. They way they live the Faith is distinctively theirs.

But it remains the same Faith, the same beliefs. The Jesuits do no maintain a concept of sin and redemption that is separate from that of the Church.

So it does not matter that the Pope is a Jesuit, or Franciscan, or Dominican or Secular. What is sinful remains sinful, what is damaging to the soul remains damaging to the soul. The theological philosophy of any Pope does not, and cannot not, change that.

Thank you for saying my exact thoughts. And yeah I am very familiar with Jesuits. The fact that some Jesuits have theological errors (Anthony demello and many Jesuits have been reprimanded) does not make them a different faitpheir concept of sin is the same and the precepts are the same. It is the same faith with the same doctrine. Also I am from Latin america so I am much more familiar with Jesuits from Latin America and the pope himself before being pope as he was very well know in Latin America specially during the dictatorship and I even heard several of his homilies when he was bishop of Buenos Aires. His concept of sin is the same as the church what happens is that the media is constantly trying to misquote him or mistranslating to try to push liberalism in the church.

 

[marymary1975]

It very much matters. He is how old, 78 ? You cannot change him into what you think the Pope is, has been, or should be. He cannot teach against the teachings of the Church, but that does not been he must believes everyone of them is fully correct according to God. We are not talking about the Commandments, we are talking about the man made laws of the Church which were inspired by God, that doesn’t mean they are perfect. There have been many changes in the Church over the years.

Many Jesuits would tell someone to pray and ask God for his guidance. Because I was raise my a mother that did not believe you had to go to a priest to confess one’s sins and was outraged when we had to go at school (family secrets might come out) I have not been to confession 30 years. Not one priest I have told that to has told me I am going to hell, not one. They haven’t even preached to me because they know I know the Churches teaching and they know God knows how sorry I am for my sins on a daily basis. They don’t tell me I am going to be saved either. They just tell me God knows my heart.

My question remains the same to you, how do you know accurately and from a reputable source or from the pope’s own words that he doesn’t share the same teaching as the church. Show me in which direct statement coming out of his mouth he preferred a different dictrine (because I do know several statements made by him even when he was a bishop that clearly reflect that his belief is exactly the same as the one in the church).

 

[shelby_sun]

My question remains the same to you, how do you know accurately and from a reputable source or from the pope’s own words that he doesn’t share the same teaching as the church. Show me in which direct statement coming out of his mouth he preferred a different dictrine (because I do know several statements made by him even when he was a bishop that clearly reflect that his belief is exactly the same as the one in the church).

Not one, and I believe your right. My point was not to convince anyone that he said something against the Church. It was to tell people to calm down over this, no on knows what he actually said or meant but Pope Francis himself. I trust him to do and say exactly what he thinks best in any situation.

There are a few things I simply do not agree with that the Church teaches. I cannot believe something I simply cannot believe, that would be brain washing. There are some here that think I should not be a part of the Catholic church because of these couple of issues or that I am going to go to hell if I don’t repent. I could repent and ask for forgiveness but God would know I was asking falsely as He would know my heart. Luckily I belong to a huge Catholic community that feels the way I do on these issues, so I am not alone.

 

[davidv]

Not one, and I believe your right. My point was not to convince anyone that he said something against the Church. It was to tell people to calm down over this, no on knows what he actually said or meant but Pope Francis himself. I trust him to do and say exactly what he thinks best in any situation.

There are a few things I simply do not agree with that the Church teaches. I cannot believe something I simply cannot believe, that would be brain washing. There are some here that think I should not be a part of the Catholic church because of these couple of issues or that I am going to go to hell if I don’t repent. I could repent and ask for forgiveness but God would know I was asking falsely as He would know my heart. Luckily I belong to a huge Catholic community that feels the way I do on these issues, so I am not alone.

How do you reconcile the above with this:
Homily of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

…Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An “adult” faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceipt from truth…

18 April 2005