What Pope Francis actually said about divorce and remarriage in the WYD return trip interview

[livingwordunity]

Today, I saw an Aug. 3, 2013 editorial in the Green Bay Press Gazette that says:

For example, on that same flight he made it clear women would not be considered for priesthood — “the church has spoken and says no … that door is closed” — yet he speculated that Catholics who divorce and remarry might be able to receive communion again — “I believe this is a time of mercy, a change of epoch.” (Source)

This editorial is not correct. Pope Francis did not speculate that Catholics who divorce and remarry might be able to receive communion. The Pope didn’t say anything different than what is already taught by the Church. Here is the part of the official transcript that the GPG editorial missed:

“With reference to the issue of giving communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they can’t…), I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage.” (Google Translate) - Pope Francis WYD return trip interview

 

[livingwordunity]

The Catholic Church won’t ever accept a remarriage after a valid marriage (unless a spouse becomes widowed) because Christ said, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). There are many in the culture who want to call a valid marriage invalid while wanting to call an invalid marriage a valid one.

 

[McCall1981]

Thanks for pointing this out.

All the disinformation out there is so harmful and disheartening

 

[cradlecatholic5]

I agree … mercy is needed.

 

[R_C]

This is just like those who advocate for women priests et cetera.

The declaration “concerning the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried” very clearly affirms:

The Code of Canon Law establishes that “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (can. 915).

In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. …]

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. …]

1. Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. …]

Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. …]

1. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.

The letter to the bishops of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly affirms:

It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei. …]

this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.

This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion …]

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”. In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

This letter also states:

Many argue that the position of the Church on the question of divorced and remarried faithful is overly legalistic and not pastoral.

One can readily admit that the Magisterium’s manner of expression does not seem very easy to understand at times. It needs to be translated by preachers and catechists into a language which relates to people and to their respective cultural environments.

The essential content of the Church’s teaching, however, must be upheld in this process. It must not be watered down on allegedly pastoral grounds, because it communicates the revealed truth.

Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands of the Gospel understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth. …]

If at times in the past, love shone forth too little in the explanation of the truth, so today the danger is great that in the name of love, truth is either to be silenced or compromised. Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and uncomfortable. But it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom.

A pastoral approach which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be grounded in the truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral.

 

[Geo17]

I just read the entire report of what the Pope said. I think at some point he is going to deal with the issue of divorce and remarriage a little closer than he has had time to do already. Until he does, I want to offer my opinion on this, because I know divorce and remarriage has been abused. But not always.

I am thinking of a certain woman I know who had no choice but to leave the husband of her youth, whom she loved as much as any woman could. I know this because I counseled her throughout the whole ordeal. She didn’t want to even leave her 1st husband. But he had stopped going to work, and he was following a new age guru who saw nothing wrong in him doing that. She stayed with her 1st husband until he had caused his family to lose everything they had. He also made his sons so confused about God they would now be considered agnostic. So she left the 1st husband because she had to relocate to get a job where she could support herself and her sons. Almost 10 years later she met a man who was a widower, and he wanted to marry her. It was only then that she filed for a divorce. IMHO a woman like this one should not be excommunicated from the church. Not only was it not her choice to leave husband 1, but she is also a good Christian, and she’s a loyal wife.

So when the new Pope gets around to dealing with this issue, I hope he allows people like her to be part of the church again.

 

[livingwordunity]

I am thinking of a certain woman I know who had no choice but to leave the husband of her youth, whom she loved as much as any woman could. I know this because I counseled her throughout the whole ordeal. She didn’t want to even leave her 1st husband. But he had stopped going to work, and he was following a new age guru who saw nothing wrong in him doing that. She stayed with her 1st husband until he had caused his family to lose everything they had. He also made his sons so confused about God they would now be considered agnostic. So she left the 1st husband because she had to relocate to get a job where she could support herself and her sons. Almost 10 years later she met a man who was a widower, and he wanted to marry her. It was only then that she filed for a divorce. IMHO a woman like this one should not be excommunicated from the church. Not only was it not her choice to leave husband 1, but she is also a good Christian, and she’s a loyal wife.

So when the new Pope gets around to dealing with this issue, I hope he allows people like her to be part of the church again.

The Church shows her mercy in allowing a divorce in extreme circumstances such as if a husband beats his wife and threatens to kill her and their children. But a valid marriage does not become invalid with time. A valid marriage doesn’t have an expiration date other than when one spouse dies. Jesus would tell this woman that the second man she is with is not her husband just as he told the Samaritan woman at the well “You are right in saying, `I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly” (John 4:17-18). The woman you speak of can and still should attend Mass, but she can’t receive holy Communion in good conscience until she leaves the relationship with the second man. Until or unless the Church grants her and annulment the relationship the first marriage is presumed to be valid, so the second marriage is therefore presumed to be adultery. An annulment is not the same as a divorce. When the Church grants an annulment she is saying that, for whatever serious reasons, the marriage never was a valid one. And the Church should not be bullied into giving communion to people who are living in an open state of mortal sin. When we receive holy Communion we should receive it with humility, reverence, and trembling since what we are receiving is the Body and Blood of Christ. We should not demand it with pride.

 

[R_C]

So when the new Pope gets around to dealing with this issue, I hope he allows people like her to be part of the church again.

She can always be part of the Church.

No Pope will “deal with this issue” the way you think.

If she had a special situation, odds are the matrimony wasn’t even valid and the Church may grant a decree of annulment or whatever is proper. If instead she was validly married, then what are we talking about here? She can still ask for the penalty to be lifted and receive Holy Communion in the ways delineated by Holy Church.

 

[livingwordunity]

She can always be part of the Church.

No Pope will “deal with this issue” the way you think.

If she had a special situation, odds are the matrimony wasn’t even valid and the Church may grant a decree of annulment or whatever is proper. If instead she was validly married, then what are we talking about here? She can still ask for the penalty to be lifted and receive Holy Communion in the ways delineated by Holy Church.

From the way Geo17 described it, the woman got divorced and remarried.

 

[R_C]

From the way Geo17 described it, the woman got divorced and remarried.

Please see my quotes from Church documents regarding faithful Catholics divorced and remarried.

And I know it’s a very difficult situation because of someone very close to me…but I don’t like the approach of “let’s make new rules to fit with the age”. The teachings of the Church are timeless, and we see our Church built on rock-solid foundations. These situations are not new in 2000 years of Catholicism…what is new is the idea that someone - a pope, a council… - may just decide arbitrarily to change the rules, and forget about all that the Magisterium said in the past 20 centuries…and *that, *to me, falls short of blasphemy.

 

[livingwordunity]

Please see my quotes from Church documents regarding faithful Catholics divorced and remarried.

I never knew about that until seeing it now. So, how do the divorced and remarried “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”? Do they agree to live in separate rooms at opposite ends within the house and try their best to always be fully dressed whenever they see each other? Isn’t this considered a disciplinary aspect of Church teaching that can therefore change later? I’m asking because I can see how this can be easily abused by people. It is technically possible for people to do this, but with temptation being a real factor, it doesn’t seem likely that most would be able to since it is two people who “married” because they are sexually attracted to each other. And with them having had kids together, they already know each other intimately.

 

[R_C]

I never knew about that until seeing it now. So, how do the divorced and remarried “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”?

By not sleeping together, by not experiencing the marital embrace, by living as brother and sister.

Isn’t this considered a disciplinary aspect of Church teaching that can therefore change later? I’m asking because I can see how this can be easily abused by people.

Ideally they would cease to live together.

But this is not always possible, so the Church tries to be understanding and gives provision for men and women of good faith,

It is technically possible for people to do this, but with temptation being a real factor, it doesn’t seem likely that most would be able to since it is two people who “married” because they are sexually attracted to each other.

Sexual attraction is not all in marriage, of course. And if people fall to temptation, sacramental confession is always there.

It is not easy, I say almost heroic. But keep in mind:

I say to you,whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” His disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

The Gospel was never meant to be painless.

 

[J_Peterson]

I got the feeling that he wants to look at what makes a valid marriage a bit closer. Maybe re-look at the annulment process. Not sure if I’m right though.

I could see someone seeing that as speculation that the rules will change, of course they would be wrong of course.

 

[livingwordunity]

By not sleeping together, by not experiencing the marital embrace, by living as brother and sister. Ideally they would cease to live together. But this is not always possible, so the Church tries to be understanding and gives provision for men and women of good faith, Sexual attraction is not all in marriage, of course. And if people fall to temptation, sacramental confession is always there. It is not easy, I say almost heroic.

What about how we are supposed to make an attempt to avoid temptations and the near occasions of sin? And couldn’t this lead to a slippery slope of homosexuals in a so-called “same-sex marriage” saying that they can’t separate because of kids that they either adopted or that are the children of one of them? Couldn’t they also just say that they intend to live together in their homosexual relationship without sex? What about two heterosexuals who are living together out of wedlock but who have kids together? Couldn’t they say that they don’t intend to have sex? I told my wife about this, and she compared it to keeping pornography around the house and promising not to use it. What is the difference? When I hear about things like this and I hear about priests who get reprimanded for denying holy Communion to someone who is openly in a homosexual relationship, I sometimes wonder why I’m telling my kids that they have to wait before receiving their first holy Communion.

 

[R_C]

What about how we are supposed to make an attempt to avoid temptations and the near occasions of sin? And couldn’t this lead to a slippery slope of homosexuals in a so-called “same-sex marriage” saying that they can’t separate because of kids that they either adopted or that are the children of one of them? Couldn’t they also just say that they intend to live together in their homosexual relationship without sex? What about two heterosexuals who are living together out of wedlock but who have kids together? Couldn’t they say that they don’t intend to have sex? I told my wife about this, and she compared it to keeping pornography around the house and promising not to use it. What is the difference? When I hear about things like this and I hear about priests who get reprimanded for denying holy Communion to someone who is openly in a homosexual relationship, I sometimes wonder why I’m telling my kids that they have to wait before receiving their first holy Communion.

This is exactly why the Church can’t be “more merciful” and must hold on to what is established.

As for what’s the difference, sorry, but a loved one is not a porn magazine to be used. When we see a loved one, our first thought shouldn’t be sex.

And we are talking about very special, almost heroic circumstances in which a couple should in fact cease to live together but they can’t do that because of their children.

We are not talking about intrinsically disordered unions, we are talking about two faithful Catholics, a man and a woman, who live together remarried, that is, having gone through a civil marriage.

Can people cheat? Well, then they will be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Regardless, Roma locuta, causa finita.

 

[livingwordunity]

As for what’s the difference, sorry, but a loved one is not a porn magazine to be used. When we see a loved one, our first thought shouldn’t be sex.

And we are talking about very special, almost heroic circumstances in which a couple should in fact cease to live together but they can’t do that because of their children.

We are not talking about intrinsically disordered unions, we are talking about two faithful Catholics, a man and a woman, who live together remarried, that is, having gone through a civil marriage.

Can people cheat? Well, then they will be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Regardless, Roma locuta, causa finita.

But the two have at least at one point committed the act of adultery with each other, and they are continuing to live together. Is this not a great temptation? I know that it would be for me, and I know that I would be doomed to fail in my attempt to keep it like brother and sister if I were in this situation. We are talking about people who have inherited concupiscence. And how is this arrangement which on the surface appears to be adultery but isn’t explained to the children?

By the way, I used to be in a situation when I was lapsed in my faith where I was living in sin in an invalid civil marriage. It did feel like I was trapped in the situation. But when I was in this situation I used to not go up for holy Communion when I went to Mass. I wasn’t angry with the Church, and I never blamed the Church for not accepting my situation. I continued to avoid receiving holy Communion until the relationship ended in a divorce, and I got an annulment. And now I’m in a valid marriage that is blessed by the Catholic Church.

 

[livingwordunity]

It seems there are many who believe that just because they were Catholic by birth that it’s their right to receive holy Communion no matter what. And it could be that when the Church bends over backwards for them with legal loopholes to receive holy Communion that they will see it as the Church telling them that they are right.

 

[Geo17]

Let me see if we can shift gears somewhat. First I’d like to ask if any of you have the Telecare or EWTN channels? I only have them about 2 months and I like what I’m hearing.

I also recall hearing that the previous Pope said 1 reason he resigned was because at his age he didn’t think he had the strength to deal with the problems that are coming. We are already in some of the most perilous times since Jesus left, and they’re only going to get worse.

I keep hearing on the 2 channels I have, about the new evangelizeation. I also keep hearing about this Catholics come home movement. Finally, I keep hearing more and more, that “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” Ephesians 2:8&9.
This is very good. Somehow I thought the Catholic church always taught that, but I think I was wrong. Certainly the clergy always knew it, but the church mixed in works with it, which is wrong. Don’t misunderstand me, I am delighted beyond words, every time I hear a priest or Bishop say this. I’m delighted because this is what the Bible says. This is what the original apostles said. And this is the truth. Change is coming to the RCC and Pope Francis is to be congratulated for taking on this challenge. Most people by nature don’t like change and will argue against it simply because it’s change. But this is very good change.

We are in perilous times. Not just the RCC but the whole world, and not just spiritually, but in all ways. By teaching that we’re saved by faith, and not by works, we’re breaking down the biggest barrier between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is wonderful because Protestantism in America is a terrible mess. There was only supposed to be 1 church. There’s only 1 God, and Jesus meant for there to be one church. With the help of God, I pray Pope Francis can do this.
Amen

 

[livingwordunity]

Change is coming to the RCC and Pope Francis is to be congratulated for taking on this challenge.

Pope Francis just recently came out with his first papal encyclical. The “change” is that we have a new Pope who has the same message but delivered with a different style. But I’m glad that this change of style is appealing to people so that hopefully more of them may accept what the Catholic Church has always taught.

 

[pnewton]

I do not think the Church will ever change its position, but it is not impossible. Since there is the possibility of living together chastely, then it is possible to see only the act as an individual sin that needs confession and not always view such a marriage as an ongoing state of mortal sin. The argument is whether having to confess the same sin repeatedly makes the marriage a state of mortal sin. Well, I doubt there are many here that do not have some sins you have to keep confessing.