Archbishop Chaput: divorced/remarried must live as brother and sister to receive Communion [CC]

[godisgood77]

In other words, the Archbishop did exactly what the Pope asked, he discerned what positions might be available and made the results of his discernment known.

When the Pope made this statement

To whom do you think he was giving the responsibility of doing the necessary discernment, if not the local Ordinaries.

I hope that in time we will see the true interpretation come through. It has been said by the Pope through Cardinal Schonborn there is no general norm that can cover all the particular cases. So laying down a general norm seems to me to be against the Popes words and intention. The major epiphany of AL is that individual circumstances need to be discerned through a pastoral engagement; not as a one-size fits all. You and I can simply disagree…

 

[godisgood77]

Perhaps a typo?
From the Oxford English Dictionary
oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/spinster
spinster
Pronunciation: /ˈspinstər/
NOUN

derogatory
An unmarried woman, typically an older woman beyond the usual age for marriage.
Example sentences Synonyms
Usage

The development of the word spinster is a good example of the way in which a word acquires strong connotations to the extent that it can no longer be used in a neutral sense. From the 17th century, the word was appended to names as the official legal description of an unmarried woman: Elizabeth Harris of Boston, Spinster. This type of use survives today only in some legal and religious contexts. In modern everyday English, however, spinster cannot be used to mean simply ‘unmarried woman’; as such, it is a derogatory term, referring or alluding to a stereotype of an older woman who is unmarried, childless, prissy, and repressed.

Whoa… I was not aware of this definition…

I was thinking more of one who spins (puts a spin on) a political media story so as to give something a favorable or advantageous appearance; a spin doctor, spin merchant or spin master.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spinster

 

[Brendan]

I hope that in time we will see the true interpretation come through.

Is not +Chaput qualified to interpret AI?

It has been said by the Pope through Cardinal Schonborn there is no general norm that can cover all the particular cases. So laying down a general norm seems to me to be against the Popes words and intention. The major epiphany of AL is that individual circumstances need to be discerned through a pastoral engagement; not as a one-size fits all. You and I can simply disagree…

Are you saying that +Chaput did not make a discernment, which was exactly what the Pope was calling for??

How was +Chaput not pastorally engaged in the discernment? Are the shepherds of diocese prohibited from making that discernment? If so, where is that in AI

 

[godisgood77]

Is not +Chaput qualified to interpret AI? I

Well, there are several differing interpretations… see Schonborn, Burke and Chaput to name just a few…

Are you saying that +Chaput did not make a discernment, which was exactly what the Pope was calling for??

No he probably did make a general discernment… however, not a discernment of individual cases with unique circumstances. The difference is a general norm vs. individual cases. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I can’t tell if you actually don’t get it or are being obtuse.

How was +Chaput not pastorally engaged in the discernment? Are the shepherds of diocese prohibited from making that discernment? If so, where is that in AL

Bingo, I think you got it… the Pope is asking that the discernment be made **with **the individuals and taking in to account their situations, not a cleric discerning without the people involved.

 

[Brendan]

Well, there are several differing interpretations… see Schonborn, Burke and Chaput to name just a few…

Or the one I got from a Papal Nuncio as he was giving a briefing to

No he probably did make a general discernment… however, not a discernment of individual cases with unique circumstances. The difference is a general norm vs. individual cases. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I can’t tell if you actually don’t get it or are being obtuse.

Bingo, I think you got it… the Pope is asking that the discernment be made **with **the individuals and taking in to account their situations, not a cleric discerning without the people involved.

Where does the Pope make the requirement that such discernment is individual? Here is the passage from AI.

Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services, which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted

Where is this individual discernment that you claim is required by the Pope?

The only part that I see is a simple ‘requires discernment’

 

[godisgood77]

Where does the Pope make the requirement that such discernment is individual? Here is the passage from AI.

Where is this individual discernment that you claim is required by the Pope?

The only part that I see is a simple ‘requires discernment’

I suggest you read the document as the idea of accompaniment and discernment is prominent throughout… here is a clear cut passage where the need for the pastor to work with individuals and their unique case…

300.  If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake 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”, 335 the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.336 Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop. Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at re-conciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage. A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone”.337 What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which “guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a full-er participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”.338 These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions”, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours. When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own de-sires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard.

 

[tseleehw]

I suggest you read the document as the idea of accompaniment and discernment is prominent throughout… here is a clear cut passage where the need for the pastor to work with individuals and their unique case…

300.  If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake 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”, 335 the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.336 Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop. Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at re-conciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage. A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone”.337 What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which “guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a full-er participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”.338 These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions”, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours. When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own de-sires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard.

Just because there are rules and guidelines established by a bishop does not mean that there is not room for individual discernment - the discernment must simply work within the framework that the rules and guidelines establish. Having clear rules and guidelines in a diocese, and working with couples individually are two principles that are not at odds with each other. In fact, also contained in your quote above, it states, “Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.” It is a long established discipline, based on the doctrine of the Church, that divorced and civilly remarried couples cannot receive communion. In this case, they could speak with a priest and he could discern their situation and help them get to the point where they could receive communion once again.

Also I wanted to point out that at least one other diocese will not be changing the discipline of the reception of communion with regards to the divorced and civilly remarried: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1017206

So it seems that Archbishop Chaput will not be the only one in thinking like this, many others may yet follow suit. We will see.

 

[Brendan]

I suggest you read the document as the idea of accompaniment and discernment is prominent throughout… here is a clear cut passage where the need for the pastor to work with individuals and their unique case…]

Here is the FC 34 that was referenced.

They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. "And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations

What do you think that means?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I love this man. What a great shepherd.

 

[manygift1spirit]

He didn’t “lay now rules.” These has always existed. He is simply restating what have always exsisted due to all the confusion.

A person who is not permitted to receive communion should NOT be a leader in Church Ministry.

Lectors, EMHC, ministry heads, etc. should ALL be good examples of living the Catholic Faith. They should all be held to the same standard that church employees and clergy are held to

These restrictions are not mainly for the spiritual health of the person it whatever irregular situation, but rather for the spiritual health of others: to avoid giving scandal. The archbishop places a high priority on instruction (it is a Work of Mercy). Other bishops may have other good priorities. I will say though that I am having a hard time envisioning a situation where it would be prudent to keep folks ignorant about the relevant teachings of their own faith for anything more than a very short time. But I am willing to be convinced…

 

[phil19034]

These restrictions are not mainly for the spiritual health of the person it whatever irregular situation, but rather for the spiritual health of others: to avoid giving scandal. The archbishop places a high priority on instruction (it is a Work of Mercy). Other bishops may have other good priorities. I will say though that I am having a hard time envisioning a situation where it would be prudent to keep folks ignorant about the relevant teachings of their own faith for anything more than a very short time. But I am willing to be convinced…

Very true!

 

[pnewton]

Let’s tell everyone they’re too sinful to even bother showing up at Church, that should reverse the devastating demographic trends that are undeniably in front of us!

AB Chaput said nothing about coming to Mass or participating in the life of the Church. I do not think most have actually read what this man wrote. It is a very worthwhile read:
archphila.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AOP_AL-guidelines.pdf

Here is a column he wrote as well.
archphila.org/archbishop-chaputs-column-pope-francis-on-love-in-the-family/

 

[pnewton]

Well, there are several differing interpretations… see Schonborn, Burke and Chaput to name just a few.

As no real specifics are given in Amoris Laetitia, each bishop has his own duty to minister to the people in his diocese. There is nothing in Archbishop Chaput’s letter that contradicts what Pope Francis said, church teaching or canon law. Another bishop may want to do otherwise. He can do so still without violating Church teaching or contradicting what Pope Francis has said. Whether or not canon law would ever be violated, and whether this is relevant is between the Pope and his bishop. The current code already has written in it many exceptions for almost every rule there is. I can see where a bishop can take what the Pope said as license to determine a situation may occur not foreseen by canon law. From AL p. 304

It is reductive simply to consider whether or
not an individual’s actions correspond to a general
law or rule, because that is not enough to discern
and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life
of a human being. I earnestly ask that we always
recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and
learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment:
“Although there is necessity in the general principles,
the more we descend to matters of detail, the
more frequently we encounter defects…

 

[Wannabe_Monk_16]

He can’t be re-assigned fast enough. Think the pope had him squarely in mind when he made his comments about “conservative” elements in the Church.

Let’s tell everyone they’re too sinful to even bother showing up at Church, that should reverse the devastating demographic trends that are undeniably in front of us!

Brilliant.

What if this Shepherd is preventing his flock from possibly committing sacrilegious reception of the Holy Eucharist? Why would you want him to be re-assigned?
No one is “too sinful to even bother showing up at Church.” There are spiritual benefits of merely attending Mass. Even if you don’t receive the Eucharist, you are still in the presence of Our Lord.

 

[godisgood77]

Here is the FC 34 that was referenced.

What do you think that means?

I believe that means that the ideal does not change, but a person can… as such the law of gradualness means that with effort and sacrifice a person can move closer and closer to the ideal (or maybe better said - the truth) … so that gradually the person can attain a state of grace in accordance with Jesus’ teaching and the Church.

agree or disagree?

 

[Brendan]

I believe that means that the ideal does not change, but a person can… as such the law of gradualness means that with effort and sacrifice a person can move closer and closer to the ideal (or maybe better said - the truth) … so that gradually the person can attain a state of grace in accordance with Jesus’ teaching and the Church.

agree or disagree?

Disagree, in fact you are violating the first sentence.

They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future

It is NOT some sort of ideal for the future, but a reality for each of us NOW.

.

 

[godisgood77]

Disagree, in fact you are violating the first sentence.

***Quote:
They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future

---

It is NOT some sort of ideal for the future, but a reality for each of us NOW.

.

I really haven’t come across anyone who believes the law is merely an ideal. That would diminish the integrity of the law. However, a rigid interpretation of the law as something that once you fail to achieve, you can never recover is an untenable position for the Church and the faithful… and, by the way, a direct contradiction to AL 296 *- The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart…
*

I’m certainly not sure of the best way to solve for this real problem… there a many people who are way smarter and more qualified than I… However, I do know for sure that there needs to be a path for those who fail to be perfect to reintegrate.

 

[Brendan]

I really haven’t come across anyone who believes the law is merely an ideal. That would diminish the integrity of the law. However, a rigid interpretation of the law as something that once you fail to achieve, you can never recover is an untenable position for the Church and the faithful… and, by the way, a direct contradiction to AL 296 *- The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart…
*

There is no one claiming that a violation of the law condemns anyone forever. If one repents of the sin, God is merciful.

But the Commands of Christ are just that, commands; they are what we have to obey if we love Him (John 14:15)

There is a command against adultery. The law of gradualness requires that one break from the sin. If they fail in that, and there is repentance at that failure, there is confession and reconciliation.

But the INTENT must always be to reject the sin. There is no pastoral judgment that can relieve a couple from having that intent. Not as some future state, but that which should be happening now.

That is why there is no contradiction in this matter between F.C and A.I. and thus why +Chaput’s statement in in full accord with A.I.

I’m certainly not sure of the best way to solve for this real problem… there a many people who are way smarter and more qualified than I… However, I do know for sure that there needs to be a path for those who fail to be perfect to reintegrate.

Each is reintegrated as their state in life allows. Part of your problem seems to be a misunderstanding on what it means to be integrated. A person who is an EMHC, or on Parish Council is not more integrated than a person who simply attends Mass.

A bishop would be well within his rights to state that only Instituted Acolytes can operate as EMHCs, or that only boys can be altar servers. That does not mean that those who are not instituted, or those that are girls are any less ‘integrated’ into the Church.

They are no less members of the Body of Christ than anyone else.

 

[godisgood77]

Disagree, in fact you are violating the first sentence.

It is NOT some sort of ideal for the future, but a reality for each of us NOW.

.

There is no one claiming that a violation of the law condemns anyone forever. If one repents of the sin, God is merciful.

But the Commands of Christ are just that, commands; they are what we have to obey if we love Him (John 14:15)

There is a command against adultery. The law of gradualness requires that one break from the sin. If they fail in that, and there is repentance at that failure, there is confession and reconciliation.

But the INTENT must always be to reject the sin. There is no pastoral judgment that can relieve a couple from having that intent. Not as some future state, but that which should be happening now.

That is why there is no contradiction in this matter between F.C and A.I. and thus why +Chaput’s statement in in full accord with A.I.

Each is reintegrated as their state in life allows. Part of your problem seems to be a misunderstanding on what it means to be integrated. A person who is an EMHC, or on Parish Council is not more integrated than a person who simply attends Mass.

A bishop would be well within his rights to state that only Instituted Acolytes can operate as EMHCs, or that only boys can be altar servers. That does not mean that those who are not instituted, or those that are girls are any less ‘integrated’ into the Church.

Excluding people permanently from the possibility of holding positions of responsibility regardless of state in life is exclusion. There is no amount of mental circus tricks that can change that.

If a person is divorced, then remarried without an annulment repents and amends his or her life exactly as the Church prescribes, they would still be excluded in +Chaput’s Archdiocese…that is not forgiveness, that is a scarlet letter.

At face value, there is a contradiction between AL and +Chaput.

 

[Brendan]

Excluding people permanently from the possibility of holding positions of responsibility regardless of state in life is exclusion. There is no amount of mental circus tricks that can change that.

Is the Church committing a fault when it excludes woman from being Pope? Or from being a bishop at all?

Your error is that you are presuming that excluding a person is somehow an act of injustice. There is no injustice, as a lay person has no right to hold positions outlined by +Chaput. Ergo, nothing that they are owed is being denied to them.

If a person is divorced, then remarried without an annulment repents and amends his or her life exactly as the Church prescribes, they would still be excluded in +Chaput’s Archdiocese…that is not forgiveness, that is a scarlet letter.

If they went to Confession and received absolution, then yes, they HAVE been forgiven. But that is not the same thing as being entitled to be on Parish Council.

At face value, there is a contradiction between AL and +Chaput.

If you claim that, you are not seeing with the eyes of the Church.