Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

[rcwitness]

Really? You are going to use rape as an example? That’s pretty lame! That is so different than what is being addressed.

 

[AugustTherese]

Really? You are going to use rape as an example? That’s pretty lame!

And it is lame to protest the Pope and his words of teaching.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m not protesting his teaching. I’m just one of a lot of people who believe his instructions warrant clarity and distinction about the universal law of abstaining from CONSENSUAL sex within an irregular marriage when receiving Holy Communion.

He claimed their isn’t a universal law about these situations, right?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

…about the universal law of abstaining from CONSENSUAL sex within an irregular marriage when receiving Holy Communion.

He claimed their isn’t a universal law about these situations, right?

You. Need. To. Read. The. Document.

He made NO SUCH CLAIM! You are making yourself look silly!

He said that we have to make sure marriages deemed irregular actually are irregular. If the marriage is actually irregular you cannot recieve the sacraments until you conform your marriage to the gospel ie no sex.

 

[rcwitness]

He said that we have to make sure marriages deemed irregular actually are irregular. If the marriage is actually irregular you cannot recieve the sacraments until you conform your marriage to the gospel ie no sex.

Did he really say that???

 

[rcwitness]

He made NO SUCH CLAIM! You are making yourself look silly!

Chapter 8
“a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.”

The consequence of sexual relations outside of marriage always means no Eucharist, until confession and resolution to abstain is been brought to the Sacrament.

Being unaware in the past has nothing to do with those made aware by the Church.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Did he really say that???

Read the document.

Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and re-married, but of everyone, in whatever situation they fnd themselves. Naturally, if someone faunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion.

No get out of jail free pass. No making objective sin magically ok.

He goes on:

Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest.

No mention of the sacraments here. He is not suggesting that the sacraments be available to people flaunting objective sin. If your marriage is irregular and you are not willing to address that, you don’t get access to the sacraments.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

He made NO SUCH CLAIM! You are making yourself look silly!

Chapter 8
“a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.”

The consequence of sexual relations outside of marriage always means no Eucharist, until confession and resolution to abstain is been brought to the Sacrament.

Being unaware in the past has nothing to do with those made aware by the Church.

Put it in context! This is from the preceding paragraph:

1. I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integra-tion is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruit-ful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in differ-ent ecclesial services, which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclu-sion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted.

Again, no mention of the sacraments here, rather there is a reminder that scandal must be avoided.

And the next sentence after your quote:

Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to un-derstand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.

No get out of jail free cards here either.

 

[rcwitness]

No mention of the sacraments here.

Footnote to 305
"In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Evangelii gaudium, 44). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

No mention of the sacraments here.

Footnote to 305
"In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Evangelii gaudium, 44). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’

You cannot read this footnote in isolation. You must hold in mind what has been laid out before. Any reception of the sacraments must conform to the teachings of the gospels and the church. In some exceptional cases, people might be in situations were they are under duress and cannot act differently. For example, If you are being forced you are not culpable. See paragraphs 301-303.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

mrsdizzyd:

No mention of the sacraments here.

Footnote to 305
"In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Evangelii gaudium, 44). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’

You cannot read this footnote in isolation. You must hold in mind what has been laid out before. Any reception of the sacraments must conform to the teachings of the gospels and the church. In some exceptional cases, people might be in situations were they are under duress and cannot act differently. For example, If you are being forced you are not culpable. See paragraphs 301-303.

I think we are making progress. Thanks for hanging in with me.

So basically, you mean against the person’s will, their spouse is forcing sex? That is rape, which of course I agree they can receive Communion.

Is that what the footnote refers to?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Pope Francis reiterates that in order to receive the sacraments you must make a commitment to align your situation to the gospels.

He also acknowledges that there are exceptional cases with mitigating circumstances in which people cannot act differently. I these situations the sacraments might be available to you, but it requires a period of discernment. Reception of the sacraments is not automatic. Bishops must issue guidelines for how their priests should handle these situations.

Paragraphs 301-303 talk about mitigating circumstances. Paragraphs 307-308 reaffirm the marital ideal and explain how mercy fits into the equation.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I think we are making progress. Thanks for hanging in with me.

So basically, you mean against the person’s will, their spouse is forcing sex? That is rape, which of course I agree they can receive Communion.

Is that what the footnote refers to?

Rape or abuse would be examples of things that might nullify culpability. You are being forced.

I think someone trying to responsibly implement AL should have a very high threshold for allowing exceptional cases to receive the sacraments. I think the contingent language used in the footnote makes it clear that he is not saying that any old mitigating circumstances will do. The bishop’s guidelines should help in this regard.

 

[rcwitness]

For example, If you are being forced you are not culpable

Not only not culpable, but a victim, Yes!

These “certain situations” would be against their will. I completely agree these can express a good confession and receive His Eucharist. The point is their will is to abstain.

 

[Mboo]

Let’s stop with this hypocrisy that wants to deny evidence. Pope Frrançois even said it in “osservatore romano” that the interpretation of AL made by the Argentine bishops is the only valid one, and the bishops of Argentina have clearly stated that a divorced-remarried could have sex with his partner and take the Eucharist if abstinence could wreak havoc on children.

 

[Mboo]

Rape or abuse would be examples of things that might nullify culpability. You are being forced.

When one is raped, there is no sin at all, because sin is an act of the will! why choose extreme examples to exonerate a clear deviation from the traditional doctrine of the Church made in AL? Pope Francis has already clearly given his interpretation of AL and in an official way.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Refer once again to AL;

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullifed by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.343

Situations were one spouse abuses another or one spouse forces other are examples of duress and fear that would “diminish or even nullify”.

…the bishops of Argentina have clearly stated that a divorced-remarried could have sex with his partner and take the Eucharist if abstinence could wreak havoc on children.

In reading the Argentina guidelines I see a faithful summary of Chapter 8 with all the same cautions to carefully discern:

Paragraph 4 of the guidelines:

1. This path does not necessarily end with receiving the sacraments, but may lead to other ways of achieving further integration into the life of the Church: a more active presence in the community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, or giving time to church activities etc. (cf. 299).

Paragraph 5:

1. Whenever feasible, and depending on the specific circumstances of a couple, and especially when both partners are Christians walking together on the path of faith, the priest may suggest a decision to live in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996).

Reconciliation!

1/2

 

[mrsdizzyd]

2/2

Paragraph 6

If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.

Access is only possible if there are mitigating circumstances that affect whether or not a person receiving is culpable. This is not a free for all as affirmed by the next paragraph (7)

1. But we have to avoid understanding this possibility as an unlimited access to the sacraments, as if all situations warrant it. The idea is to properly discern each case. For example, special care is called for in “a new union arising from a recent divorce” or in “the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family” (298). Also, when there is a sort of justification or ostentation of the person’s situation “as if it were part of the Christian ideal” (297). In these difficult cases, we should be patient companions, looking for ways of integrating them (cf. 297, 299).

As stated in AL, the sacraments are not available to people who flaunt sin as if it is in someway acceptable or as if they are somehow living in an ideal Christian marriage. You must be aware of the gravity of your situation and be committed to living in a way that seeks to conform to the gospel as AL makes clear.

 

[Mboo]

Pope Francis has already clearly given the interpretation of AL! and you always go on with futile speculation.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

It is not futile speculation. It is careful reading and application of basic reading comprehension skills. I have quoted extensively from the documents. You are welcome to do the same. They are all available online.

If you read the documents as they are written you see documents which are careful to affirm church teaching and affirm the gospel imperatives. They are narrow rather than broad.