African cardinal: does Amoris Laetitia open door to polygamists?

[Contra_Mundum_1]

OraLabora,

are you suggesting that things that are difficult should just be chucked? God asks the impossible so let’s get rid of it?

Jesus tells us we MUST pick up our cross and follow him. He tells us to cutt of a limb that causes us sin. These are very serious words. He means it. We are given sufficient grace to overcome the difficulties. Do you think he excluded the modern sexually dysfunctional society from his teachings? It is obvious our spiritual leaders think so.

 

[OraLabora]

OraLabora,

are you suggesting that things that are difficult should just be chucked? God asks the impossible so let’s get rid of it?

Jesus tells us we MUST pick up our cross and follow him. He tells us to cutt of a limb that causes us sin. These are very serious words. He means it. We are given sufficient grace to overcome the difficulties. Do you think he excluded the modern sexually dysfunctional society from his teachings? It is obvious our spiritual leaders think so.

I’m not suggesting that anything be chucked. I’m saying that growing with the help of grace is not an on/off switch. It can be a lifetime process. Sometimes we cut off sacramental grace from the very people who need it most to grow in Christ.

AL is simply recognizing that and giving sincere penitents room to grow, rather than casting them off.

A man with the physique of Miguel Indurain could train for the Tour de France in a few years. A man like me, who adores cycling, couldn’t even hope to do it in a lifetime. Fortunately unlike professional cycling, God will even hear our confession on our death bed.

We need to recognize that the capacity to turn that grace into concrete spiritual growth is not equally given. But it is given. AL simply gives pastors the spiritual tools and latitude to help all grow in grace no matter our strengths and weaknesses. A field hospital for the wounded, not a resort for the righteous. The more I read it the more I recognize AL as wise teaching from a very wise pastor.

 

[philipl]

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30387

It’s going to be interesting how culture will play a part in how Catholic view marriage. Use to be the culture conformed the church. Now the church is looking how culture affects people and how the church will conform to those new norns.

 

[Brendan]

The two situations are not even closely analogous, and the burden placed on the polygamist is not the same as that placed on the D&R. First of all, for a polygamist entering the Church and being told that he must make his subsequent wives equivalent to “sisters”, nothing prevents him from continuing conjugal relations with his first (legitimate) wife.

In the case of a D&R couple,the couple could reuniteand maintain conjugal relations with nothing required by the Church.

Secondly, the subsequent wives, never having been in a valid marriage in the first place, are not bound either validly or sacramentally to their “husband” and are free to remarry if that’s culturally possible. It may not be, but that’s certainly not a Church requirement.
.

In the case ofthe D&R couple you mention, if one of that couple has never been married before, theytoo are free to marry.

So, yes, theyARE analogous, and thatfact that several African bishops ( including the one that I regularly visit) DO see them as being similar would*seem to indicate that they are.

 

[Brendan]

I’m not suggesting that anything be chucked. I’m saying that growing with the help of grace is not an on/off switch. It can be a lifetime process. Sometimes we cut off sacramental grace from the very people who need it most to grow in Christ.

And that is the role of previent Grace.

AL is simply recognizing that and giving sincere penitents room to grow, rather than casting them off…

Familaris Consortio*cast no one off, and gave the penitents room to grow as well.

 

[TCEL]

In the case of a D&R couple,the couple could reuniteand maintain conjugal relations with nothing required by the Church.

In the case ofthe D&R couple you mention, if one of that couple has never been married before, theytoo are free to marry.

So, yes, theyARE analogous, and thatfact that several African bishops ( including the one that I regularly visit) DO see them as being similar would*seem to indicate that they are.

The situations seem like they could be very similar to me. It seems the case in Africa that the blanket approach is first woman is first wife, regardless of the quality of that relationship or the economic stability of the rest. Is that accurate? Does the difference mainly have to do with reducing sex to only one partner, versus complete abstinence in divorced/remarried? But even then, divorced and remarried, if the first union was valid, are in the same situation the African man would be in if he decided to live with his second wife? (Let’s say husband and wife one are seriously estranged.) I don’t know.

Or should the question be whether or not the polygamous man’s assumed wife is the first one? Maybe it’s the third. That seems more consistent with the logic I see being pressed in light of AL. I can see why the African bishops wanted this addressed. All I hypothesize is that most uninformed Catholics in America won’t spend time wringing hands over this, and accept the premise that Pope Francis wants Communion for divorced/remarried, and think that it’s a good idea.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ve been following a number of threads on Amoris Laetitia for some time now, and also reading numerous articles and books relating to the issue of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics back to the Sacraments. There is a rather disturbing trend coming even from the “higher-ups” in the Church. This trend is to all be explicitly say that the Pope is advocating a blanket permission for those who are in “irregular unions” to receive Communion. If one actually reads the document thoughtfully, one realizes that this is not the case at all. What the Pope is advocating is admitting, in certain (rare) circumstances, those who, although in an “irregular union,” are not culpable for mortal sin. This admission would be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the rest of the community (stated explicitly at least twice in Amoris), and with an eye towards leading the couple to living out the fullness of the Gospel - meaning either sacramentalizing their union where possible, or bringing them to the point where they would live as brother and sister for the sake of raising the children together. It’s actually an extremely nuanced position, and is presented as an exception to the norm.

I had a thought, and I’d love to see what you all have to say about this. Exceptions to the norm exist throughout Canon Law. One exception is admitting non-Catholic Christians to Holy Communion in certain circumstances. We all know that an Eastern Orthodox Christian would be permitted by the Catholic Church to receive Communion in a Catholic Church. But Canon Law also permits a Protestant Christian (typical the spouse of a Catholic) to receive Communion in very rare circumstances!

Now, here’s my thought. Claiming that the exception that seems to be opened up in Amoris for Communion (in rare cases) for divorced and remarried Catholics potentially opens the door to admitting polygamists to Communion, is analogous to saying that the exception of admitting non-Catholic Christians to Communion potentially opens the door to admitting non-Christians to Communion. Does this seem like a fair statement?

I apologize if my post isn’t very clear. I just woke up about 30 minutes ago, and haven’t yet had my full morning round of tea.

 

[OraLabora]

In the case of a D&R couple,the couple could reuniteand maintain conjugal relations with nothing required by the Church.

You’re joking right? You seriously think that a person, long abandoned and perhaps abused by a former spouse, perhaps from what might have been a invalid marriage to begin with (but may mot be provable) should pine away for their former spouse while remaining in complete continence for their entire life?

:roll eyes:

Do you really think AL’s exception for the D&R opens the door to all the D&R and polygamists?

This isn’t a theoretical theological debate.

The AL exception addresses the lives of very real, and very badly hurt, people.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ve been following a number of threads on Amoris Laetitia for some time now, and also reading numerous articles and books relating to the issue of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics back to the Sacraments. There is a rather disturbing trend coming even from the “higher-ups” in the Church. This trend is to all be explicitly say that the Pope is advocating a blanket permission for those who are in “irregular unions” to receive Communion. If one actually reads the document thoughtfully, one realizes that this is not the case at all. What the Pope is advocating is admitting, in certain (rare) circumstances, those who, although in an “irregular union,” are not culpable for mortal sin. This admission would be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the rest of the community (stated explicitly at least twice in Amoris), and with an eye towards leading the couple to living out the fullness of the Gospel - meaning either sacramentalizing their union where possible, or bringing them to the point where they would live as brother and sister for the sake of raising the children together. It’s actually an extremely nuanced position, and is presented as an exception to the norm.

I had a thought, and I’d love to see what you all have to say about this. Exceptions to the norm exist throughout Canon Law. One exception is admitting non-Catholic Christians to Holy Communion in certain circumstances. We all know that an Eastern Orthodox Christian would be permitted by the Catholic Church to receive Communion in a Catholic Church. But Canon Law also permits a Protestant Christian (typical the spouse of a Catholic) to receive Communion in very rare circumstances!

Now, here’s my thought. Claiming that the exception that seems to be opened up in Amoris for Communion (in rare cases) for divorced and remarried Catholics potentially opens the door to admitting polygamists to Communion, is analogous to saying that the exception of admitting non-Catholic Christians to Communion potentially opens the door to admitting non-Christians to Communion. Does this seem like a fair statement?

I apologize if my post isn’t very clear. I just woke up about 30 minutes ago, and haven’t yet had my full morning round of tea.

It was very clear to me, and very well written. And I thank you for it.

 

[Brendan]

You’re joking right? You seriously think that a person, long abandoned and perhaps abused by a former spouse, perhaps from what might have been a invalid marriage to begin with (but may mot be provable) should pine away for their former spouse while remaining in complete continence for their entire life?

:roll eyes:

No I am not. It is possible in some circumstances, hence the use of my word ‘could’

Do you really think AL’s exception for the D&R opens the door to all the D&R and polygamists? *

This isn’t a theoretical theological debate.

Actually it IS. The goal of the Churchis to bring people to Christ. It cannot do that ifthe Church proposes solutions that are contrary to Christ.

Soany pastoral solution need to look at what is True. If a solutionsteaches or proposes a falsehood, then there really*IS no exception

The AL exception addresses the lives of very real, and very badly hurt, people.

I understand that the people are very real, and very badly hurt. Which is why we do not need to look at*solutions that actually compound the hurt under the guise of false practices.

How*did EXACTLY did Familaris Consortio fail to offer healing to those same hurt people? Not a superficial healing, but true healing.

 

[Seamus_L]

In the real world, and not the theoretical one we always talk about, how many people do you actually think, are going to seek out couseling from a priest in order to find out if God’s will is for them to return to communion ? In my entire life, I remember one person, who remarried outside the church,and kept coming on Sunday’s but abstained from communion because it was against church teaching. I’m sure there’s more, but I’m also sure the number is very very small. People regularly violate all sorts of church teaching, but if they’re still in the pews, 99 pct are going to communion.

 

[Ginny89]

In the real world, and not the theoretical one we always talk about, how many people do you actually think, are going to seek out couseling from a priest in order to find out if God’s will is for them to return to communion ? In my entire life, I remember one person, who remarried outside the church,and kept coming on Sunday’s but abstained from communion because it was against church teaching. I’m sure there’s more, but I’m also sure the number is very very small. People regularly violate all sorts of church teaching, but if they’re still in the pews, 99 pct are going to communion.

Which is why it is shocking that you had people pushing these innovations in the first place.

 

[TCEL]

I’ve been following a number of threads on Amoris Laetitia for some time now, and also reading numerous articles and books relating to the issue of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics back to the Sacraments. There is a rather disturbing trend coming even from the “higher-ups” in the Church. This trend is to all be explicitly say that the Pope is advocating a blanket permission for those who are in “irregular unions” to receive Communion. If one actually reads the document thoughtfully, one realizes that this is not the case at all. What the Pope is advocating is admitting, in certain (rare) circumstances, those who, although in an “irregular union,” are not culpable for mortal sin. This admission would be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the rest of the community (stated explicitly at least twice in Amoris), and with an eye towards leading the couple to living out the fullness of the Gospel - meaning either sacramentalizing their union where possible, or bringing them to the point where they would live as brother and sister for the sake of raising the children together. It’s actually an extremely nuanced position, and is presented as an exception to the norm.

I had a thought, and I’d love to see what you all have to say about this. Exceptions to the norm exist throughout Canon Law. One exception is admitting non-Catholic Christians to Holy Communion in certain circumstances. We all know that an Eastern Orthodox Christian would be permitted by the Catholic Church to receive Communion in a Catholic Church. But Canon Law also permits a Protestant Christian (typical the spouse of a Catholic) to receive Communion in very rare circumstances!

Now, here’s my thought. Claiming that the exception that seems to be opened up in Amoris for Communion (in rare cases) for divorced and remarried Catholics potentially opens the door to admitting polygamists to Communion, is analogous to saying that the exception of admitting non-Catholic Christians to Communion potentially opens the door to admitting non-Christians to Communion. Does this seem like a fair statement?

I apologize if my post isn’t very clear. I just woke up about 30 minutes ago, and haven’t yet had my full morning round of tea.

For sure, the examples in which this exception applies for divorced/remarried is supposed to be very marginal, and incredibly rare, I am told. So, is it not the case there are some narrow exceptions for polygamists, say, who exclusively has relations with wife three? It really doesn’t sound so outrageous to me to wonder about this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You’re joking right? You seriously think that a person, long abandoned and perhaps abused by a former spouse, perhaps from what might have been a invalid marriage to begin with (but may mot be provable) should pine away for their former spouse while remaining in complete continence for their entire life?

:roll eyes:

Do you really think AL’s exception for the D&R opens the door to all the D&R and polygamists?

This isn’t a theoretical theological debate.

The AL exception addresses the lives of very real, and very badly hurt, people.

If there is abuse, Catholics are allowed to divorce, so why wouldn’t such a person, if they were abused and divorced their spouse, not be able to get an annulment?

There are people who divorced their spouse for a variety of reasons I bet, who are living in continence as brother and sister with their spouse right now. It may be difficult, it may be challenging, but they live this life. Their life doesn’t end because of living in continence.

It’s interesting you use the “perhaps” in regards to the status of their former marriage’s validity, because the status of their former marriage, for whatever marriage, has not been provably determined in a tribunal, and that marriage could be a valid marriage.

 

[Ginny89]

For sure, the examples in which this exception applies for divorced/remarried is supposed to be very marginal, and incredibly rare, I am told. So, is it not the case there are some narrow exceptions for polygamists, say, who exclusively has relations with wife three? It really doesn’t sound so outrageous to me to wonder about this.

Indeed. According to Jesus’ teaching if the first marriage is valid, the remarried are polygamists. Because Jesus does not recognize the dissolution of that valid marriage .

 

[Yeoman]

His Eminence hits the nail on the head. The Holy Father, Cardinal Kasper, and others who support more flexible pastoral solutions for those in irregular sexual unions only seem to be thinking of Western society. Where’s the mercy for Africa? The whole world seems to constantly snub its nose at Africa…its tragic.

Indeed, the African example is that its the backbone of the Church right now. The German example is not to be envied.

 

[TCEL]

Indeed. According to Jesus’ teaching if the first marriage is valid, the remarried are polygamists. Because Jesus does not recognize the dissolution of that valid marriage .

Well, I feel more comfortable saying adulterous than polygamous, because that’s what Jesus said. However, I’m not too hung up on the labels. I’m just trying to make sense of this the way I had to learn the difference between NFP and contraception, which to many people don’t seem different at face-value. I’m struggling harder with this though, as the differences don’t seem so apparent to me.

The most favorable and charitable argument I can think of for favoring Communion for divorced/remarried would revolve around the heart of the law vs. the letter of the law. Is marriage indissoluble even if the good-will in the hearts of both spouses is dead? Is that the nature of love, and truth? When Jesus said that God intended no divorce in the beginning, then was that to be an injunction in all times and everywhere? Can God not show mercy to people who screw up? I think these are very fundamental questions about reality that are at play here.

 

[edwayne]

I’ve been following a number of threads on Amoris Laetitia for some time now, and also reading numerous articles and books relating to the issue of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics back to the Sacraments. There is a rather disturbing trend coming even from the “higher-ups” in the Church. This trend is to all be explicitly say that the Pope is advocating a blanket permission for those who are in “irregular unions” to receive Communion. If one actually reads the document thoughtfully, one realizes that this is not the case at all. What the Pope is advocating is admitting, in certain (rare) circumstances, those who, although in an “irregular union,” are not culpable for mortal sin. This admission would be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the rest of the community (stated explicitly at least twice in Amoris), and with an eye towards leading the couple to living out the fullness of the Gospel - meaning either sacramentalizing their union where possible, or bringing them to the point where they would live as brother and sister for the sake of raising the children together. It’s actually an extremely nuanced position, and is presented as an exception to the norm.

I had a thought, and I’d love to see what you all have to say about this. Exceptions to the norm exist throughout Canon Law. One exception is admitting non-Catholic Christians to Holy Communion in certain circumstances. We all know that an Eastern Orthodox Christian would be permitted by the Catholic Church to receive Communion in a Catholic Church. But Canon Law also permits a Protestant Christian (typical the spouse of a Catholic) to receive Communion in very rare circumstances!

Now, here’s my thought. Claiming that the exception that seems to be opened up in Amoris for Communion (in rare cases) for divorced and remarried Catholics potentially opens the door to admitting polygamists to Communion, is analogous to saying that the exception of admitting non-Catholic Christians to Communion potentially opens the door to admitting non-Christians to Communion. Does this seem like a fair statement?

I apologize if my post isn’t very clear. I just woke up about 30 minutes ago, and haven’t yet had my full morning round of tea.

I have also followed the ‘news cycle’ and articles covering Amoris Laetitia since last April, as well as much of the discussion, controversy and ‘spin’ surrounding the two Synods on the family leading up to the final document. While I agree that Amoris Laetitia offers a nuanced take on extremely rare situations for those in irregular situations, the problem seems to be those who are using Amoris Laetitia as an opening for a much more progressive interpretation; i.e., virtually any divorced and remarried can now approach Holy Communion provided they simply approach the priest to discuss the matter. I suppose there are always those who do not actually accept Church teaching and practice, but in this instance, they believe they have cover with Amoris Laetitia. It seems the cardinal is noticing this in some circles in the West and is saying that this will confuse the issue in Africa since extrapolating such an interpretation would seem to allow polygamists to licitly request admission to Communion.

 

[edwayne]

The most favorable and charitable argument I can think of for favoring Communion for divorced/remarried would revolve around the heart of the law vs. the letter of the law. Is marriage indissoluble even if the good-will in the hearts of both spouses is dead? Is that the nature of love, and truth? When Jesus said that God intended no divorce in the beginning, then was that to be an injunction in all times and everywhere? Can God not show mercy to people who screw up? I think these are very fundamental questions about reality that are at play here.

These are excellent questions, but the real issue is not whether the good-will in the hearts of both spouses is dead as that is irrelevant to whether the marriage is valid or not. Certainly, it could be indicative of a problem from the beginning, but not necessarily so. If the marriage is valid, but they no longer choose to love each other (and yes, love is a choice) and choose to separate, then yes, God can show mercy upon them and forgive them of the faults that contributed to the failure and divorce. However, if the marriage was valid, they are still bound regardless. Mercy does not permit them to then seek another ‘spouse’ as they are still bound to each other; in other words, mercy does not dissolve the previous marriage. Similarly, mercy does not permit polygamy.

 

[Brendan]

. Is marriage indissoluble even if the good-will in the hearts of both spouses is dead? .

The answer to that question comes from Christ Himself

Mark 10

The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him.
He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”
They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”
But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.*
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife],d
and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

If God hasjoined two people, can ahuman action, such as loss*of goodwill, separate them?