Pope Francis on Invalid Marriages [Akin]

jimmyakin.com/wp-content/uploads/popr-francis-teaching-300x195.jpgPope Francis recently made some remarks regarding invalid marriages, and I’ve received a large number of requests for comment, so here goes . . .

1) When did Pope Francis make his remarks?

During a Q & A session on Thursday, June 16. He was answering questions at the opening ceremony for a diocesan congress dealing with his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (i.e., the document that he released after the two synods of bishops).

His remarks were, therefore, unscripted.

2) What did he say?

Unfortunately, the Vatican doesn’t yet seem to have a full transcript available in English. The Italian, however, is here.

Without an English transcript to quote, we switch over to news reporting, according to which:

A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”

The Pope answered from his own experience.

“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”

3) Wait. “The great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”? He really said that?

Yes. He really said that. It’s on video (in Italian) on the Vatican’s YouTube channel here.

4) Is this Church teaching?

No. The Church does not have a teaching about what percentage of marriages (ostensibly sacramental or otherwise) are invalid.

Further, Q & A sessions are not the venue in which new magisterial teachings are promulgated.

At most, this would be an expression of pastoral opinion on the part of the pope.

5) Does anyone agree with this opinion?

Not that I am aware of.

I know of no competent expert in canon law, biblical studies, or theology that would hold the opinion that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”

In fact, I don’t know of anybody—expert or not—who would hold this view.

If Pope Francis holds it, he would be the only one I am aware of.

6) Why do you say “if Pope Francis holds it”?

Because I’m not certain that he does.

Experience has shown that Pope Francis is a man who makes dramatic and inexact statements, particularly when speaking off the cuff.

This is related to his “make a mess” philosophy, according to which it is better to get people’s attention and shake things up rather than let the Church slide into cultural irrelevance.

In a fashion, he seems to be trying to imitate Jesus, who frequently used hyperbole to make arresting statements that tweaked the pious sensibilities of his age. Thus Pope Francis sometimes compares those he critiques to Pharisees and doctors of the law—the same groups that opposed Jesus.

On occasion, everybody blurts things out without fully thinking them through, and I can’t rule out the possibility that this was simply a case of hyperbole gone wrong—particularly in light of the problems with the claim in question.

Perhaps the pope meant to say something like “a vast number” and ended up saying “the vast majority” instead.

Even a moment’s thought would reveal that the claim is seriously problematic, suggesting that this is not the pope’s settled opinion but something that he blurted out without giving it serious thought.

7) Why do you say that?

There are multiple problems with the claim. Some emerge from considering the statement from a canonical perspective (see here). However, I would point to two additional considerations, one from a theological perspective and one from a biblical perspective.

8) What’s the theological argument?

From a theological perspective, the claim is extraordinarily sweeping. It’s not just that many Catholic marriages are invalid or even that a majority are (which would already exceed credibility) but that “the vast majority” of such marriages are invalid.

That would mean that Christ and the Holy Spirit have allowed conditions to degenerate so far among the baptized that “the vast majority” of those committed enough to follow the Church’s teachings and practice on marriage nevertheless enter marriage invalidly.

That’s inconceivable.

9) What’s the biblical argument?

From a biblical perspective, we don’t see Jesus taking this line in his day.

It is easy for us today to imagine that attitudes toward divorce were stricter in the ancient world, and particularly among first century Jews, than they are today, but they were not.

Basically everybody in the ancient world—except Christians—held that marriage did not prevent the possibility of getting divorced and remarried.

This was true among the Romans, among the Greeks, and among the Jews. Indeed, a prominent school of Jewish thought held that a man could divorce his wife over nothing more than a burned meal.


And even among Jews who had a more restricted view of divorce—such as the rival school which held a man could divorce his wife if she committed adultery or did something else to bring shame on him—it was always understood that divorce carried with it the right of remarriage.

The culture that Jesus lived in was just as much a “culture of the provisional” with respect to marriage as ours.

And yet Jesus didn’t treat their marriages as invalid but as valid. He stated:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Jesus would not have spoken this way if he viewed “the vast majority” of marriages in his day as invalid. If you were only invalidly married to a woman, you divorced her, and you then attempted marriage with another woman, you wouldn’t be committing adultery against the first wife.

Without a valid first marriage, there would be no adultery.

Jesus thus indicated that one can enter a valid marriage without understanding it as precluding the possibility of divorce and remarriage.

And the Church has understood it likewise. Merely thinking you could, under some circumstances, divorce and remarry is not grounds for an annulment.

10) Have there been any developments since the pope made his remarks?

Yes. According to news reports:

When the Vatican released its official transcript of the encounter the following day, they had changed the comment to say that “a portion of our sacramental marriages are null.”

This is not unexpected. It is common practice, extending back multiple papacies, for the official version of a pope’s remarks to be amended to correct misstatements, sources of potential confusion, etc.

When the matter concerns something of substance, it is normal for the change to be personally approved by the pope, which is what happened in this case:

In the Vatican blog “Il sismografo,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that this change is a revision approved by the Pope himself.

“When they touch on subjects of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the Pope himself,” Father Lombardi said. “This is what happened in this case, so the published text was expressly approved by the Pope.”

11) What should we make of all this?

The fact Pope Francis made the remark in the first place is a source for concern, and it should prompt him to reflect on and re-evaluate the way he answers questions in public, for this is far from the first time something like this has happened when he has answered questions off the cuff.

We may be thankful that there was sufficient presence of mind on the part of those around the pope to propose the change to the official version of the remarks, and we may be thankful that the pope approved the change.

Given the amount of confusion regarding the marriage issue, both in society and in Church circles, I suggest we keep the matter in prayer.

Looking for Something Good to Read?

jimmyakin.com/wp-content/uploads/commentary.pngMay I suggest my*commentary on the Gospel of Mark?

It goes through the whole text and provides fascinating information that you may have never heard before.

It also comes with a verse-by-verse study guide with questions that you or your study group can use.

And it comes with a lectionary-based study guide, so you can read along with Mark in the liturgy and ponder its meaning before or after Mass.

Right now, this commentary is available*exclusively on Verbum Catholic software.

Verbum is an incredibly powerful study tool that I use every day, and I heartily recommend it to others.

I can also***save you 10%***when you get the commentary or one of the bundles of Verbum software. Just use the code***JIMMY1***at checkout.




Yes I think you’ve put this very well Jimmy.
If we Catholics could drop our Ultra Montanist tendancies and treat him as the normal human being that he is when speaking off the cuff on a plane (which a Pope is surely allowed to do if he wants)…then I think everything becomes obvious to most simple people of good will.
He likes to exaggerate to make his point, as many public speakers do. That includes Jesus.

Clearly he only ever meant to say a “large number” … just as the Vatican eventually corrected with his approval as you note. I don’t think this is rocket science.

And yet Jesus didn’t treat their marriages as invalid but as valid. He stated:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Jesus would not have spoken this way if he viewed “the vast majority” of marriages in his day as invalid…

I think you might have gone off the rails a bit here.
The Pope is certainly saying that large numbers of licitly married Catholics, should they seek an annulment, would likely be granted one.

I agree with him, and so did my Priest Professors (including Canon Lawyers) in private conversations from back in the 1980s. As do many of my Priest (now) friends from those days.

What does Jesus truly mean by “wife” or “husband” when he speaks above. Surely he means a truly valid wife/husband in the eyes of God rather than a narrow juridical one before the eyes of men?

Which is not quite the same as this particular “wife” or “husband” who may in fact be only “putative” rather than truly “valid”. This subtle but important distinction is what keeps Marriage Tribunals in business is it not? I see no reason here why Jesus must be understood to mean here he sees few marriages that are potentially not true marriages.

If anything I see the reverse. The very reason he rails against those who dispose of their wives is because they are heartless. For a husband to divorce his wife is to send her into destitution - unless she can attract another man to support her. Thus Jesus elsewhere (where his hyperbole is toned down and his comments are more nuanced) says the husband makes her an adulteress.

So I see Jesus here as calling callous and hard of heart husbands and wives to conversion and to assume the values of a true marriage. Given this context why wouldn’t Jesus tend to think that many did not yet have valid marriages.

I personally have no doubt that large numbers of true blue sacramentally done Catholic marriages are unlikely valid until many years after the fact.

That would mean that Christ and the Holy Spirit have allowed conditions to degenerate so far among the baptized that “the vast majority” of those committed enough to follow the Church’s teachings and practice on marriage nevertheless enter marriage invalidly. That’s inconceivable.

I do not see why it is inconceivable that large numbers of ceremonially valid Catholic marriages in fact start out invalid. We all know that a majority of allegedly validly married Catholics use contraceptives and the Holy Spirit is still with us. In terms of outward moral behaviour our statistics are little better re abortion and contraception and divorce and remarriage and murder than the rest of secular society isn’t it?

Why must we assume that the true Church is to be identified by its outward cleanliness?
I think we are to be identified by the way we love and forgive one another.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.