African cardinal: does Amoris Laetitia open door to polygamists?

[TCEL]

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.

That is my understanding as well. It’s so easy for me to hear the other side on this though. I can easily hear someone say that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. At any rate, all of this is getting somewhat distasteful to me, and reminds me of the Sadducees trick question about whose wife is the real one. That’s why I have my tag line from Chesterton saying that breaking the big laws doesn’t bring freedom, but the small laws.

I still don’t honestly see how this whole argument couldn’t be applied in very rare and specific cases to polygamists if it can be applied to very rare exceptions here. It’s silly to think they may not have the same struggles as us, if not multiplied! For all I know, there already are exceptions over there. I wouldn’t know.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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.

Just as a point of clarification for me, are you saying that the problem is not with the document so much as it is with folks using the document to promote their own agenda? Would it be fair to say that there is a “spirit of Amoris Laetitia” that is analogous to the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II”?

If that is the case, then again the issue becomes not the text so much as the necessity of reading the text in context (something which seems to be rarely done these days) - both the contexts of Pope Francis’/Bergogglio’s previous teachings on marriage and family life, and in the context of the Church’s wider teaching on marriage and family.

Would this be a fair assessment?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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.

I don’t think that follows. Pope Francis makes it very clear that the whole purpose of accompanying the divorced/remarried - and offering the possibility of Confession and Communion in rare cases - is to lead them to the fullness of the gospel of the Family. Again, this would mean normalizing/sacramentalizing the “irregular unions” where possible, and eventually leading the couple to live as brother and sister (for the sake of the children) where sacramentalizing the union is not possible. The Pope also makes it clear that this needs to be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the community at large.

There can be no question of “normalizing” or “sacramentalizing” a polygamous union because polygamy itself is not even analogous to what the Church means when she speaks of marriage. Quite simply because I don’t live in a culture that encounters such situations, I can’t foresee a method for admitting a polygamist to Communion without causing scandal to the Church at large. So we could meet a polygamist where they are and present the Gospel to them, we could even encourage them to be active in the Catholic community, but there would be no way that we’d be able to welcome them to the fullness of sacramental Communion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t think that follows. Pope Francis makes it very clear that the whole purpose of accompanying the divorced/remarried - and offering the possibility of Confession and Communion in rare cases - is to lead them to the fullness of the gospel of the Family. Again, this would mean normalizing/sacramentalizing the “irregular unions” where possible, and eventually leading the couple to live as brother and sister (for the sake of the children) where sacramentalizing the union is not possible. The Pope also makes it clear that this needs to be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the community at large.

There can be no question of “normalizing” or “sacramentalizing” a polygamous union because polygamy itself is not even analogous to what the Church means when she speaks of marriage. Quite simply because I don’t live in a culture that encounters such situations, I can’t foresee a method for admitting a polygamist to Communion without causing scandal to the Church at large. So we could meet a polygamist where they are and present the Gospel to them, we could even encourage them to be active in the Catholic community, but there would be no way that we’d be able to welcome them to the fullness of sacramental Communion.

So in the beginning the divorced and remarried couple can receive Holy Communion despite not living as brother and sister but that would lead to them living as brother and sister? If they can receive Communion while having a sexual relationship, why would they then want to live as brother and sister? Why would anybody go through the tribunal process if they can just receive Communion if they consult a Priest? I am confused as to how Amoris Latetia conforms with the 1994 letter from the Congregation For the Doctrine Of The Faith: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

I’ve heard of one story where a divorced and remarried person was allowed to receive Communion in one Parish, but not in another.

Cardinal Arize and Cardinal Napier are African Cardinals. Polygamous marriage is likely something they know more about than most people on this forum because polygamy is more commonly practiced than in the West. If they can both see something in comparison for polygamists and the divorced and remarried, then that is very concerning.

 

[TCEL]

I don’t think that follows. Pope Francis makes it very clear that the whole purpose of accompanying the divorced/remarried - and offering the possibility of Confession and Communion in rare cases - is to lead them to the fullness of the gospel of the Family. Again, this would mean normalizing/sacramentalizing the “irregular unions” where possible, and eventually leading the couple to live as brother and sister (for the sake of the children) where sacramentalizing the union is not possible. The Pope also makes it clear that this needs to be done in such a way as not to cause scandal to the community at large.

There can be no question of “normalizing” or “sacramentalizing” a polygamous union because polygamy itself is not even analogous to what the Church means when she speaks of marriage. Quite simply because I don’t live in a culture that encounters such situations, I can’t foresee a method for admitting a polygamist to Communion without causing scandal to the Church at large. So we could meet a polygamist where they are and present the Gospel to them, we could even encourage them to be active in the Catholic community, but there would be no way that we’d be able to welcome them to the fullness of sacramental Communion.

The question is whether the first union is valid or not. If the first union is not valid, then it’s not a concern, correct? Let’s say the polygamist has exclusive relations with only one of the wives. (For whatever reason needed in order to maintain stability. It’s hard to imagine they don’t also encounter estrangement the way we do, or economic necessity, etc. Again, this seems like an extremely rare kind of case, but Communion for divorced/remarried is supposed to be for very rare cases. The cases will necessarily be complicated and convoluted, because real human life is messy, right?) Let’s say the intention is to allow the couple the grace they need in order to live as brother and sister, or even to eventually restore the first union. But if the first union isn’t valid, it’s moot. Let’s say it’s done in secret so as to avoid scandal. The polygamous marriages were contracted out of ignorance, sometimes necessity.

Why is a first union for polygamy (contracted out of ignorance) treated even more hardline and without exception than a first union for us in the West, who might have actually had some education on the matter? That actually seems a bit backwards to me. Polygamous marriage isn’t analogous to the Church’s understanding of marriage, but neither is divorce and remarriage.

I agree that AL promotes the Church’s understanding of marriage, but if there are rare exceptions for some, surely there must be rare exceptions for others. I tend to agree that if the African bishops see some cross-over, then why doesn’t their pastoral experience account for anything?

I’m not attacking anyone here. I’m just willing to grant that our unfamiliarity with polygamy may not allow us to see the crossover as easily.

 

[Thomas_White]

It would seem the Church is becoming boxed into a corner where the only way out would be to rescind the restriction that only those not in the state of mortal sin would be permitted to receive Holy Communion. While I personally believe the practice would be deplorable, it would seem this is the slippery slope upon which the Church is now perched as a result of AL. I am quite serious here.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It would seem the Church is becoming boxed into a corner where the only way out would be to rescind the restriction that only those not in the state of mortal sin would be permitted to receive Holy Communion. While I personally believe the practice would be deplorable, it would seem this is the slippery slope upon which the Church is now perched as a result of AL. I am quite serious here.

But that is Church doctrine. Surely not even a Pope could rescind the requirement that a person cannot be in mortal sin before receiving Holy Communion?

 

[Thomas_White]

But that is Church doctrine. Surely not even a Pope could rescind the requirement that a person cannot be in mortal sin before receiving Holy Communion?

One would certainly have thought so, but this concerns the emerging gray area between doctrine and practice. It seems this is a process.