I am no Catholic, but if I were I would most likely disavow any sort of loyalty to the current pope. His constant toeing the line coupled with his deliberate ambiguity make his intentions crystal clear to the impartial observer. I have no desire to see the last (western) Christian bastion fall into schism, but as a deeply religious Jew, I find that preferable to allowing the liberals free reign in the Catholic Church.

I have no objection to divorce and subsequent remarriage, but this pope will unleash his poison in due course on homosexual unions and a host of other issues as well. If he gets away with this, I have no doubt that he will be able to introduce similar heresies as well.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is exactly is the status of the Catholic doctrine on divorce? That is, is it the kind of doctrine that can be substantively changed?

Mysterious Brony is correct. Catholics take Jesus' words on divorce to be saying that divorce is impossible: once (really) married, always (really) married. For which reason, those who 'divorce' and 'remarry' commit adultery.

But the question does arise whether there ever was a marriage or not. A marriage requires certain conditions regarding the intentions of the participants: they must, for instance, be free of coercion. What looks like a marriage may not be a valid marriage, in which case the marriage can be declared null after a canonical investigation.

This teaching applies both to the sacrament of matrimony and to natural marriage.

Regarding civil marriage as a contract, it can of course be dissolved, and at least today, one can go on to remarry civilly. So the recent debates have arisen to ask what should be done in such cases, where Catholics have civilly divorced and remarried and have no obtained an annulment, either because they have not tried or because the tribunal has reviewed the case and has not found grounds for a declaration of nullity. The civilly divorced and remarried Catholic may believe, contrary to the finding of the tribunal, that the original marriage was a mere 'marriage' and was never valid, or he may believe that it was a marriage but, contrary to the teaching of the Church and of Christ, that divorce and remarriage are genuinely possible.

But yes, the doctrine of the indissolubility cannot be changed. What is potentially more flexible is the question of what one does in ambiguous cases, though the practice of refusing communion to people in these situations is drawn from canon law, and Amoris Laetitia has not altered the relevant canons.

Also, those who want a more radical (but not super-radical) reading of Amoris Laetitia generally draw a distinction between doctrine and practice. They want to say that they are changing the way pastors engage with their flock and not any settled doctrine. I think the distinction is specious, though. Doctrine can impose limitations on acceptable pastoral practice.

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox differ mainly because they put greater weight on Origen. To my knowledge, the other Church Fathers are more or less unanimous. I don't have the relevant historical surveys on hand presently.

The so-called Pauline privilege and Petrine privilege are special, though long-recognized exceptions. They apply only in the case of natural and not sacramental marriages; one of the spouses must not be a Christian, or both in the case of Pauline privilege. Petrine privilege, it seems, requires the action of the pope.

Alexander wrote:

I'm probably quite typical among Catholic laity in that I don't particularly mind whether or not there might be situations where divorced-and-remarried people may be able to receive the Eucharist, even apart from Pope John Paul II's famous "living as brother and sister" example (certainly the "grave matter" is a non-negotiable, given a Catholic understanding of marriage, but other elements of mortal sin may be absent, so it makes a certain amount of sense to let people examine their own situation in light of Christian teaching and make a decision to withdraw themselves from receiving - or not).

Canon 915 is about 'manifest grave sin'--not 'mortal sin'. That is, of course, a matter of law. People who may have less than full culpability do not have to be excluded from Holy Communion, but the Church's present law, overriding which would require a juridical action in which Pope Francis hasn't engaged, hasn't changed and continues to bind priests.

I think there is wisdom in the practice, though. There is a temptation to read the 'full knowledge' criterion for mortal sin as covering agreement or disagreement with the Church's teaching or the relevant moral precept. But I think that is a mistake; ignorance of moral precepts can aggravate culpability rather than exculpate. There may be cases where people in such situations are not fully culpable and could receive communion without mortal sin, but it is wise as a juridical matter not to let them do so. Betting on (and worse, abetting) mitigated culpability is risky.

Alexander wrote:

Disavowing loyalty to the Pope isn't a live option for me [not to state the obvious, but I'm a Catholic in England, so if I hated the Papacy I could just become a High Church Anglican]. Even if the Pope were undoubtedly wicked I would still be loyal to him qua Pope. I certainly won't become a sedevacantist just because the Pope has caused confusion in moral matters, especially considering St Peter himself was accused of the same thing - in Scripture, no less.

Agreed. It isn't novel in the Church's history for a pope to cause some confusion.