That’s fine, but we are not talking about the state of their soul, but rather their behavior in public. That alone is how the Church justifies withholding Holy Communion from those who are in a publically known adulterous relationships, such a attempts at remarriageI agree. But it has been the teaching of the Church that we cannot presume to know when another person is in a state of mortal sin. A confessor may be able to determine this, but not you or I. So when we hear that a person is divorced and remarried, we do not know the level of their consent, we do not know whether the conditions for a mortal sin were met.:
Nothing. It would mean nothing, which is exactly why the Vatican said as much in Fr. Lombardi’s statement. The Magesterium of the Church does not encompass Facebook accounts of papal phone calls.I am wondering why the Vatican is not coming out to clarify that it is NOT okay to receive communion under these circumstances?
What if pope Francis did say this to the women? What would that mean for us Catholics??
Read Ed Peter’s entry at Canon Law Blog. The Vatican is basically washing its hands of the matter. It is actually a pretty strong statement that distances the Church in her magesterial capacity entirely from whatever was said on the call. I doubt that the Pope was encouraging anyone to do anything wrong, but the point is that the Church dies not “do” doctrine by phone so the whole thing has very little to do with you and me and the rest if the Church at all.Sorry, my above post was copied incorrectly, and now it’s too late to edit. I meant to say:
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.
Of course the reason the faithful are questioning is because of the Holy Father’s call to the Marriage Summit on the divorce and remarriage issue within the Church. And, he seems to favor Cardinal Kasper’s theology on the subject. (or at least think along similar lines) You cannot tell me he is unfamiliar with Cardinal Kasper’s thinking. It does make one wonder.
This really is the most important thing and it’s NONE our business. This is: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.
In my opinion it would mean everything and my faith would be deeply shakened and challenged.Nothing. It would mean nothing, which is exactly why the Vatican said as much in Fr. Lombardi’s statement. The Magesterium of the Church does not encompass Facebook accounts of papal phone calls.
Should the Vatican reiterate the rule on Communion for divorced and civilly remarried folks? Of course. This issue has been terribly confused and I deeply regret it. But truth is truth no matter how well or not so well it is articulated. It is no secret that we Catholics have not been the most effective communicators of truth, after all. Which is too bad because we actually have the fullness if it. Be grateful for those who do speak the truth boldly and pray fir thise who don’t.
In all charity and respect I disagree. It is most definitely our business when misinterpretations are represented in the media or from individuals that twist Church law…PUBLICALLY. I would think the laity would have learned that after the misinterpretations of Vat ll, and how some of the clergy let a little too much fresh (?) air in. Any sort of even conceived dissent from Church law needs to be PUBLICALLY corrected by the faithful. I don’t believe anyone here is blaming the Holy Father for this at all…we just don’t know what was said, and you are correct on this point…none of our business. What IS our business is to shout out TRUTH. This has been taken to the public square by this individual couple and the media…it’s up to us to take to the public square and reiterated TRUE Church teachings. I do believe we are REQUIRED to do this.This really is the most important thing and it’s NONE our business. This is:
The Church’s teaching regarding after divorce actions and Communion will not change. However, it may be that the Church will look closer at annulment petitions with some compassion.
- between the woman and the Pope and her individual (and private) circumstances. We do not know the circumstances of this woman and her present husband.
- it doesn’t change Church teaching
- and it does not imply in any way that Pope Francis is deviating from Church teaching at all.
Correct on this…I am wondering if the entire thing was a miscommunication. (I am hoping it is) Pope Francis may have not realized that this couple is remarried civilly, and just heard “divorced”? Or did the couple themselves misinterpret what he said? Nothing against Church teaching on that. No of course the Church wants a couple to do everything in their power to save the marriage, but some circumstances won’t allow a marriage to continue. A divorced person who is not either remarried civilly or cohabitating or sexually involved with anyone else (other than their original spouse) can like anyone else receive the sacraments. A divorced person is in full communion with the Church just like anyone else is. If they are in any way involved with another sexually? NO.I just read another article in which Pope Francis said that divorced Catholics who go to Communion are not doing anything bad.
That would be in line with church teaching, as long as he did not say that “remarried” Catholics can also go. Because if you are divorced but not living with anyone else and consider yourself merely separated from your spouse in the eyes of the Church, you are not committing adultery.
In all charity, you are wrong to think you have the right to know another person’s private situation, such as the state of their marriage or their confession. All marriages are considered valid unless proven otherwise by a tribunal. If the Pope says someone can have Communion, then they can. Only he would know why someone can have Communion or why they cannot. The fact that the media or an individual may “twist Church law” doesn’t change that.In all charity and respect I disagree. It is most definitely our business when misinterpretations are represented in the media or from individuals that twist Church law…PUBLICALLY. I would think the laity would have learned that after the misinterpretations of Vat ll, and how some of the clergy let a little too much fresh (?) air in. Any sort of even conceived dissent from Church law needs to be PUBLICALLY corrected by the faithful. I don’t believe anyone here is blaming the Holy Father for this at all…we just don’t know what was said, and you are correct on this point…none of our business. What IS our business is to shout out TRUTH. This has been taken to the public square by this individual couple and the media…it’s up to us to take to the public square and reiterated TRUE Church teachings. I do believe we are REQUIRED to do this.
What makes your think that the pope is preserved from doing or saying anything erroneously? He cannot speak erroneously and infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Since when did obscure phone calls become official Church teaching? Read Newman on infallibility–it will help clarify things a lot.In my opinion it would mean everything and my faith would be deeply shakened and challenged.
Christ said He would guide the Church and defend it from error, and if error still occured that would make Christ wrong, and therefore not God.
Now I understand the Pope isnt required to be perfect, but if he proclaims that someone who’s married to a married person can receive ommunion, that is a matter of Faith and it would apply to the whole Church. It is said that never happen and w
ould be impossible.
I think the point was that, while the particulars of this case are not our business, it is our business as to whether or not the Pope advised against Church teaching. I mean, it would be perfectly easy to assure the public that the Pope’s advise followed Church teaching without getting into specifics or violating privacy. He could just reiterate Church teaching, for example, there are plenty of ways of doing it that would not even touch on this particular case at all.In all charity, you are wrong to think you have the right to know another person’s private situation, such as the state of their marriage or their confession. All marriages are considered valid unless proven otherwise by a tribunal. If the Pope says someone can have Communion, then they can. Only he would know why someone can have Communion or why they cannot. The fact that the media or an individual may “twist Church law” doesn’t change that.
If you think someone has “twisted Church law”, of course you can and should correct it. But that doesn’t mean knowing another person’s business. This person is being counseled by the Pope and doesn’t need your blessing, or anyone else’s.
The matter between this individual and the Pope is between them and doesn’t change Church rules and laws. The Pope is applying Church rules and laws to every situation that he is involved in. If more people would mind the matters of their own soul, they’d be a lot happier. This is idle gossip and nothing more. The scandal here is thinking the Pope has to answer to you (or anyone else) in matters of his counsel with another party. We do not own the right to know this person’s circumstances.
They’ve already done that:I think the point was that, while the particulars of this case are not our business, it is our business as to whether or not the Pope advised against Church teaching. I mean, it would be perfectly easy to assure the public that the Pope’s advise followed Church teaching without getting into specifics or violating privacy. He could just reiterate Church teaching, for example, there are plenty of ways of doing it that wouldnot even touch on this particular woman at all.
“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.”
This IS a matter of faith and morals, though. And if he taught it to this woman, then.he actually believes that. It would then apply to the entire Church. Isnt thats whats required for “ex cathedra?” Of course if you disagree with his statement you’d say it was in error and not ex cathedra, but the critieria has been met if this news account is true. Any attempts after that would simply be sophistry and mental gymnastics to preserve the teachings.What makes your think that the pope is preserved from doing or saying anything erroneously? He cannot speak erroneously and infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Since when did obscure phone calls become official Church teaching? Read Newman on infallibility–it will help clarify things a lot.
As I undestand Catholic teaching, the Holy Father may err in his private opinions, though not when speaking ex cathedra. John XXII held an erroneous opinon on the Beatific Vision, though he had not taught this ex cathedra.This IS a matter of faith and morals, though. And if he taught it to this woman, then.he actually believes that. It would then apply to the entire Church. Isnt thats whats required for “ex cathedra?” Of course if you disagree with his statement you’d say it was in error and not ex cathedra, but the critieria has been met if this news account is true. Any attempts after that would simply be sophistry and mental gymnastics to preserve the teachings.
I agree. But it has been the teaching of the Church that we cannot presume to know when another person is in a state of mortal sin. A confessor may be able to determine this, but not you or I. So when we hear that a person is divorced and remarried, we do not know the level of their consent, we do not know whether the conditions for a mortal sin were met.
This is not true. We know certain offenses against God and neighbor destroy sanctifying grace in the soul. We know a person who rapes a child commits mortal sin. What Jesus sys is we can not judge another person. We can not know if the rapist repented and has found mercy. If not the person is in the state of mortal sin.
Adultery and all sexual sins are mortal sins, says the Church. If I leave my lawful wife and run off with another woman I am committing adultery. The Church has always condemned this behavior. As long as I am living with the woman who is not my wife I am impenitent, living in the state of mortal sin.
You are confused. The pope has no authority to change the constant teaching of the Church and his predecessors in office. Morality does not change. The pope can not say abortion is not a sin. He can not say adultery is not a sin. If any pope denies the constant teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals he is apostate. Previous popes have addressed what to do if this occurs.Is there a difference between the person who looks at a woman lustfully and the person who has committed adultery multiple times? In one sense, yes. In another sense, no.
If some new matter arises that has never before existed and been addressed as far as it morality the Church may determine its morality or not. So if invitro fertilization is invented by modern science the Church can determine its morality. Or If cloning and genetic engineering begins to create designer babies it is something not previously addressed. The pope can not tell us that Mary was not a virgin, a matter of settled faith, or fornication is not sinful.
The Church can not say, oops, we goofed about xyz. Now we fixed it. Why? Jesus promised the Church would be led into all truth until the end of time. If the promise is true then we know what is moral and immoral with certainty. There can be no error ever. There can be no mistake to fix.
But the question isn’t “did he change the Magesterium over a phone call?”. The question is “did his statement to this woman contradict Church teaching?”. That question hasn’t been answered, and it would be easy to answer it.They’ve already done that: