Vatican denies Pope told Italian journalist that ‘all divorced’ will be admitted to Communion

[LongingSoul]

Invoking the spirit of the law does not make it legitimate to either a) tell people that what Jesus said was sin is not sin, or b) tell people that it does not matter that they are sinning. It is not mercy to lie to a person regarding issues that affect the state of their soul.

This does not mean that the issue shouldn’t be addressed, but it does not have to be addressed by pretending that it is ok when Christ Himself said it was not. Neither is it damaging to the beauty and meaning of Christian marriage to insist that it is a serious thing, and not something that can be taken up and discarded at will.

That so many are affected by the issue is certainly something that demands attention. But that attention can not be of the form of papering over the fact that it is a sin by treating it as perfectly ok, and hoping that God will also ignore His commandments at judgement time.

The Church has been in a 2000 year process of clarifying sin and the ways we address it to have reconciliation with God. The human condition and the culture matter because our understanding of God and relationship with God comes through our relationships with our fellow man. For example 500 years ago it was a sin to be Protestant. They were guilty of schism. Schismatics. Today it is not a sin to be a Protestant. Invincible ignorance renders the condition sinless because those who were born and raised in the tradition are not culpable of the sin of schism.

So it is still a mortal sin to be a schismatic… but the definition of a schismatic is understood as having a certain capacity and knowledge regarding what they are choosing.

 

[Augustine]

Theoretically, he could sidestep the consensus of the bishops entirely but I know he will not do this, irrespective of what his own personal response to the issue.

Some theologians (e.g., Card. Suarez) have stated that popes can be schismastic too when his actions clearly lead to breaking unity among bishops, as “by refusing to communicate with the Christian people, by ignoring the [divine] constitution of the Church, or by acting as the Church’s temporal lord rather than its spiritual head.”

Pax Christi

 

[pnewton]

Some theologians (e.g., Card. Suarez) have stated that popes can be schismastic too when his actions clearly lead to breaking unity among bishops, as “by refusing to communicate with the Christian people, by ignoring the [divine] constitution of the Church, or by acting as the Church’s temporal lord rather than its spiritual head.”

Pax Christi

That is an interesting opinion, but I am inclined to disagree.

 

[Vouthon]

Some theologians (e.g., Card. Suarez) have stated that popes can be schismastic too when his actions clearly lead to breaking unity among bishops, as “by refusing to communicate with the Christian people, by ignoring the [divine] constitution of the Church, or by acting as the Church’s temporal lord rather than its spiritual head.”

Pax Christi

I too consider this to be an interesting theological opinion but like the previous poster I am also inclined to disagree. We know from as far back as the Early Church Fathers that all other sees must be in perfect communion with the Holy See of Rome, which is the belt of orthodoxy and solidarity for the entirety of Christendom under (today at least) the Supreme Pontiff i.e. St. Irenaeus:

“…This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome’s vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…”

— Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff, The Primacy of Peter (c. 1992)

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

That’s an easy question to answer. He is part of his ministry. He talks to him because he is working to save souls; even souls of 91 year old atheists.

Saving souls doesn’t mean that you continue to be interviewed by someone who know has 4 times seriously misquoted you.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The Pope may just feel at ease with him. I have a few friends that are not Catholic and with whom I have no problem discussing points of religion, maybe because I am not obliged to agree with them nor they with me. It can get excitable if one discusses the same points with a Catholic.

 

[Augustine]

That’s very nice, but detached from history, be it St. Peter and the judaizers (Gal 2:11ff) or Francis at the synod (nyti.ms/1OthqAw).

Mysteriously, God Almighty refrains from infringing on human freedom. Bu I fear not, for the Holy Spirit never fails to protect the Church from error, even papal error, stirring faithful bishops to come to the protection of her unity, be they St. Paul or Card. Pell et al.

Pax Christi

 

[gilliam]

That’s very nice, but detached from history, be it St. Peter and the judaizers (Gal 2:11ff) or Francis at the synod (nyti.ms/1OthqAw).

Mysteriously, God Almighty refrains from infringing on human freedom. Bu I fear not, for the Holy Spirit never fails to protect the Church from error, even papal error, stirring faithful bishops to come to the protection of her unity, be they St. Paul or Card. Pell et al.

Pax Christi

Will There Be Civil War in the Church?
I asked Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez, perhaps the most influential cardinal in Francis’ papacy, if he thought this was a realistic possibility. He responded, “This is a lack of faith.”

This may seem harsh. But it is important to remember that faith is about trust, not just belief. Those raising the specter of civil war quite clearly do not trust the Holy Father and the Church (and implicitly the Holy Spirit, as well). They have more faith in their own judgement.

At the same time, let’s not forget that Francis has called for a revolution. Ideally that would only lead to conflict between Christian principles and the false idols of the world that tear down human dignity and obstruct the flourishing of persons. But realistically, it was always bound to incite intra-Church conflict. Legalism was present in Jesus’ time, and it remains so today. This mentality will always conflict with the radicalism of Christ’s teaching, even for those aiming to uphold Christ’s teachings. And given the depth and richness of Church teaching, along with our imperfect human nature, virtually all Catholics are capable of slipping into a legalistic mindset. So legalistic opposition to Francis’ revolution of mercy was always likely. And given the importance of tradition for the Church, many were likely to favor the status quo rather than wanting the Church to become a field hospital of people who go forth to the peripheries.

But Cardinal Rodriguez also talked about seeing the visible presence of the Holy Spirit at the Synod. There was disagreement, but it most often led to dialogue, not threats of war or schism. Even those Church leaders who believe that altering the Church’s approach to those who are divorced and remarried would do more harm than good by undermining the clarity of Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage certainly understand why this is up for discussion. They understand what the Church is asking if it requires an abandoned spouse to be celibate for 60 years while raising kids on her own in order to receive communion and how difficult that road is. Since they are orthodox Catholics, they understand the need to comprehend the context of Christ’s words (both as a response to a question about divorce for any reason and within the larger context of the Gospel), rather than endorsing a narrow, literalist reading of just one or two passages. These Church leaders know that our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters are not just a bunch of liberal heretics with no regard for the words of Christ and no commitment to one flesh marriage. Cardinal Rodriguez may be right: the biggest difference may be that these leaders have faith that the Spirit will guide the Church to the right response on this difficult matter.

Pope Francis is bringing a revolution. We need one. We are too distant from the radical commitment to love demanded by Christ. And there will be opposition, even threats of civil war. But it seems most likely that it will be limited to a small group of Americans who are caught up in their own social media world of like-minded hysteria than among the broader Church and its hierarchy. Hopefully some of these will break away from their bubble, clear their minds from the cacophony of bitterness and hyperbole, and choose to trust the Church rather than plot a civil war that seems unlikely to ever materialize.

millennialjournal.com/2015/11/05/will-there-be-civil-war-in-the-church/

 

[JimG]

Will There Be Civil War in the Church?

Even those Church leaders who believe that altering the Church’s approach to those who are divorced and remarried would do more harm than good by undermining the clarity of Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage certainly understand why this is up for discussion. They understand what the Church is asking if it requires an abandoned spouse to be celibate for 60 years while raising kids on her own in order to receive communion and how difficult that road is. Since they are orthodox Catholics, they understand the need to comprehend the context of Christ’s words (both as a response to a question about divorce for any reason and within the larger context of the Gospel), rather than endorsing a narrow, literalist reading of just one or two passages.

millennialjournal.com/2015/11/05/will-there-be-civil-war-in-the-church/

I highlight the above passage because it seems to both deflect the basic question of indissolubility of marriage, and to suggest that the scripture passage relating to it needs to be re-interpreted to fit the needs of the present day. These are the words of the author of the piece, not of any cleric, but it is worth noting that he places the emphasis on the second marriage, not the first. In the whole issue of indissolubility, it is the status of the first marriage that must first be determined.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Francis is bringing a revolution. We need one. We are too distant from the radical commitment to love demanded by Christ. And there will be opposition, even threats of civil war. But it seems most likely that it will be limited to a small group of Americans who are caught up in their own social media world of like-minded hysteria than among the broader Church and its hierarchy. Hopefully some of these will break away from their bubble, clear their minds from the cacophony of bitterness and hyperbole, and choose to trust the Church rather than plot a civil war that seems unlikely to ever materialize.

I can vouch that this is very true and I have to remind myself sometimes not to feel any despair that this type of internet person is a significant threat to the Popes mission. Pope Francis handles them brilliantly with the help of the Holy Spirit time and time again.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Will There Be Civil War in the Church?
I asked Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez, perhaps the most influential cardinal in Francis’ papacy, if he thought this was a realistic possibility. He responded, “This is a lack of faith.”

This may seem harsh. But it is important to remember that faith is about trust, not just belief. Those raising the specter of civil war quite clearly do not trust the Holy Father and the Church (and implicitly the Holy Spirit, as well). They have more faith in their own judgement.

At the same time, let’s not forget that Francis has called for a revolution. Ideally that would only lead to conflict between Christian principles and the false idols of the world that tear down human dignity and obstruct the flourishing of persons. But realistically, it was always bound to incite intra-Church conflict. Legalism was present in Jesus’ time, and it remains so today. This mentality will always conflict with the radicalism of Christ’s teaching, even for those aiming to uphold Christ’s teachings. And given the depth and richness of Church teaching, along with our imperfect human nature, virtually all Catholics are capable of slipping into a legalistic mindset. So legalistic opposition to Francis’ revolution of mercy was always likely. And given the importance of tradition for the Church, many were likely to favor the status quo rather than wanting the Church to become a field hospital of people who go forth to the peripheries.

But Cardinal Rodriguez also talked about seeing the visible presence of the Holy Spirit at the Synod. There was disagreement, but it most often led to dialogue, not threats of war or schism. Even those Church leaders who believe that altering the Church’s approach to those who are divorced and remarried would do more harm than good by undermining the clarity of Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage certainly understand why this is up for discussion. They understand what the Church is asking if it requires an abandoned spouse to be celibate for 60 years while raising kids on her own in order to receive communion and how difficult that road is. Since they are orthodox Catholics, they understand the need to comprehend the context of Christ’s words (both as a response to a question about divorce for any reason and within the larger context of the Gospel), rather than endorsing a narrow, literalist reading of just one or two passages. These Church leaders know that our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters are not just a bunch of liberal heretics with no regard for the words of Christ and no commitment to one flesh marriage. Cardinal Rodriguez may be right: the biggest difference may be that these leaders have faith that the Spirit will guide the Church to the right response on this difficult matter.

Pope Francis is bringing a revolution. We need one. We are too distant from the radical commitment to love demanded by Christ. And there will be opposition, even threats of civil war. But it seems most likely that it will be limited to a small group of Americans who are caught up in their own social media world of like-minded hysteria than among the broader Church and its hierarchy. Hopefully some of these will break away from their bubble, clear their minds from the cacophony of bitterness and hyperbole, and choose to trust the Church rather than plot a civil war that seems unlikely to ever materialize.

millennialjournal.com/2015/11/05/will-there-be-civil-war-in-the-church/

You had me until you took a shot at Americans. What?

Of all the Catholics in the world, we are some of the least intersted, least faithful, least passionate around. And he thinks a revolt would start here? Please.

I think of any number of countries with more zeal for the faith than America.

The Church once again, in an effort to promote healing and unity, screws up and singles people out as potential “culprits.”

Don’t get me wrong; I believe in the message of healing and unity, and it is dreadfully necessary, but you lose all credibility when that is your message and you go onto to say “and the reason we have disunity is because of so and so.” Come again? That statement in and of itself is the opposite of unifying.

 

[LongingSoul]

I highlight the above passage because it seems to both deflect the basic question of indissolubility of marriage, and to suggest that the scripture passage relating to it needs to be re-interpreted to fit the needs of the present day. These are the words of the author of the piece, not of any cleric, but it is worth noting that he places the emphasis on the second marriage, not the first. In the whole issue of indissolubility, it is the status of the first marriage that must first be determined.

But there is a whole subterranean world of meaning where doctrine is concerned. The Sacraments are not the commandments, they are sacraments of faith. They are outward signs of inward faith so are more like expressions of an inner experience of the soul. The true clergyman know that they are only the facilitators of this personal relationship between an individual and Christ, not the arbiters of the laws surrounding it. A Priest knows he can’t know for certain the state of any individuals soul in such a way to bind them by his opinion. The thing that bothers the Priests that are ministering to such families in their Parish is that they don’t really manifest the fruits of adultery. They are manifesting the faith of true marriage and family despite their objective situation. While internet commentators confidently lable every one of these families adulterers… the reality for good holy priests is that that doesn’t seem to be the full story of these souls and consequently they don’t put pressure on these families to separate and ‘stop sinning or your hellbound’.

There is more to know especially when we perceive the sacraments as medicine for the sick rather than rewards for the perfect as Pope Francis says. Some theologians have raised the fact that the annulment industry may be doing more harm to the belief in the indissolubility of marriage than good. In America especially annulment is part of every Catholic mindset and you have to wonder if anyone going into marriage these days has the true and right conviction of this indissolubility when the reality is they are likely to get an annulment if they apply. How does that impact the faith of those entering marriages in the Catholic Church today? Is the marriage truly sacramental when annulment is such a widespread reality of Catholic culture?

You might think it is all just black and white, cut and dried, open and shut… but I’m confident as this author suggests that the Popes synod bishops are far less self assured and confident that we have the power to know the mind of God for the Church.

 

[JimG]

But there is a whole subterranean world of meaning where doctrine is concerned. The Sacraments are not the commandments, they are sacraments of faith. They are outward signs of inward faith so are more like expressions of an inner experience of the soul. The true clergyman know that they are only the facilitators of this personal relationship between an individual and Christ, not the arbiters of the laws surrounding it. A Priest knows he can’t know for certain the state of any individuals soul in such a way to bind them by his opinion. The thing that bothers the Priests that are ministering to such families in their Parish is that they don’t really manifest the fruits of adultery. They are manifesting the faith of true marriage and family despite their objective situation. While internet commentators confidently lable every one of these families adulterers… the reality for good holy priests is that that doesn’t seem to be the full story of these souls and consequently they don’t put pressure on these families to separate and ‘stop sinning or your hellbound’.

There is more to know especially when we perceive the sacraments as medicine for the sick rather than rewards for the perfect as Pope Francis says. Some theologians have raised the fact that the annulment industry may be doing more harm to the belief in the indissolubility of marriage than good. In America especially annulment is part of every Catholic mindset and you have to wonder if anyone going into marriage these days has the true and right conviction of this indissolubility when the reality is they are likely to get an annulment if they apply. How does that impact the faith of those entering marriages in the Catholic Church today? Is the marriage truly sacramental when annulment is such a widespread reality of Catholic culture?
You might think it is all just black and white, cut and dried, open and shut… but I’m confident as this author suggests that the Popes synod bishops are far less self assured and confident that we have the power to know the mind of God for the Church.

Well, annulment was never a part of my mindset when I married. But nevertheless, if annulment is so widespread as to affect the validity of marriage at its outset, what is the solution? Shall we eliminate decrees of nullity? Make them extremely difficult to obtain, so they will not be a part of the mindset? Consider every new marriage is invalid until proven valid by 20 years of faithfulness?

I suppose the real question is: why does permanence in marriage seem unobtainable where it was once taken for granted? Did the synod even address that issue?

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, annulment was never a part of my mindset when I married. But nevertheless, if annulment is so widespread as to affect the validity of marriage at its outset, what is the solution? Shall we eliminate decrees of nullity? Make them extremely difficult to obtain, so they will not be a part of the mindset? Consider every new marriage is invalid until proven valid by 20 years of faithfulness?

I think the solution the Church is moving towards now is to return the process to the local Church where people are in real relationship with the parish priest and the diocese. Before the advent of the tribunals and canon lawyers, this was the only place of real discernment. I personally don’t believe in the policy of applying for an annulment ‘so that you can be free to marry again’. I think that that determination should be made at the point of wanting to marry again. I think that that is what makes it appear to outsiders and the immature to be a Catholic divorce.

I suppose the real question is: why does permanence in marriage seem unobtainable where it was once taken for granted? Did the synod even address that issue?

It’s still manifests as fairly attainable in very closed and family oriented communities like the Amish for instance but on the one hand creating closed and controlled environments like that has some advantage but on the other hand, the degree of genetic relationship that’s evolved over the years in that culture has produced some unhealthy genetic results that makes one wonder if they can survive as a culture for any significant time.

 

[gilliam]

I suppose the real question is: why does permanence in marriage seem unobtainable where it was once taken for granted? Did the synod even address that issue?

Once? Taken for granted, by whom? In what context?

Church law on marriage really didn’t form completely until over 1200 years after Christ. Even then canon law about what was or was not marriage was different than it is today.And even then, secular marriage was not considered necessarily permanent.

Ref: Family Life in the Middle Ages
By Linda Elizabeth Mitchell

I’m not saying we should change anything but canon law evolves and so does our understanding of doctrine. Anyway, all the Synod was looking at was if someone who is now in a stable relationship shouldn’t be welcome to partake of the sacraments after an appropriate penance. At least that is my understanding.

 

[pnewton]

You had me until you took a shot at Americans.

The Church once again … screws up and singles people out as potential “culprits.”

Just to be clear, this article is from a single blogger and does not represent Gilliam or The Church. When such blogs and off-site editorials are posted, response is limited as there can be no counter-response from a linked site.

 

[gilliam]

Just to be clear, this article is from a single blogger and does not represent Gilliam or The Church. When such blogs and off-site editorials are posted, response is limited as there can be no counter-response from a linked site.

True, but I wouldn’t have posted it if I didn’t find it at least an interesting take on the issue and wanted some discussion on it.

 

[JimG]

Once? Taken for granted, by whom? In what context?

Church law on marriage really didn’t form completely until over 1200 years after Christ. Even then canon law about what was or was not marriage was different than it is today.And even then, secular marriage was not considered necessarily permanent.

Ref: Family Life in the Middle Ages
By Linda Elizabeth Mitchell

I’m not saying we should change anything but canon law evolves and so does our understanding of doctrine. Anyway, all the Synod was looking at was if someone who is now in a stable relationship shouldn’t be welcome to partake of the sacraments after an appropriate penance. At least that is my understanding.

That’s my understanding as well. And if such a decision is made, does it not mean that the Church recognizes the second marriage as valid and the first marriage as invalid?

 

[gilliam]

That’s my understanding as well. And if such a decision is made, does it not mean that the Church recognizes the second marriage as valid and the first marriage as invalid?

Not necessarily

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s my understanding as well. And if such a decision is made, does it not mean that the Church recognizes the second marriage as valid and the first marriage as invalid?

While there is a checklist that the annulment tribunal uses to determine validity, Pope Benedict for one was raising the question at least as far back as 10 years ago, what of sacraments celebrated without faith? That was never something that could be determined by a Tribunal checklist.

If that is the outcome eventually it will no doubt be supported by theology and the whole body of Bishops and we can be confident of it as Gods will for us here today.