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

[phil19034]

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.

No, the Archbishop is a holy man. The Pope was most likely discussing people in the Roman Curia and priests who suffer from the Jansenism Heresy.

Archbishop Chaput is the best Archbishop we have had since Cardinal Krol. I love to hear the Archbishop’s homilies.

 

[phil19034]

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.

Before bashing the Archbishop, how about reading the document first: catholicphilly.com/media-files/2016/07/AOP_AL-guidelines.pdf

God Bless

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

No, what’s brilliant is saying that sin doesn’t matter or that it’s all a matter of individual conscience. That experiment has been tried in many mainline denominations, and as we can see, their memberships are not exactly bursting at the seams. After all, if the church teaches nothing different than what the world proposes, then why even bother to get up Sunday mornings to show up at church.

Second, if the pope has Chaput squarely in mind with regard to “conservative” elements in the Church, then the pope must be opposed to orthodoxy. I guess the pope would have had JPII squarely in mind as well.

 

[godisgood77]

The reporter at Philly.com writes that Chaput put together a six-page set of “pastoral guidelines” to implement “Amoris Laetitia” that were released on Friday.
Did he or did he not do that?
It wasn’t presented like a major change in church teaching–at least, not in this article.

So what other media is reporting it that way, that you’ve seen? You say the media is reporting it that way, so I’m curious who’s doing it…

The vitriolic comments below the story seem to be about the church teaching itself…not about a perceived change in church teaching…

.

Actually, the outrage is based on the fact that the faithful are hearing the Pope and are following his direction, but Ab Chaput wrote his guidelines as if the Pope never wrote AL with the authority of the Petrine Office behind it.

 

[tseleehw]

Actually, the outrage is based on the fact that the faithful are hearing the Pope and are following his direction, but Ab Chaput wrote his guidelines as if the Pope never wrote AL with the authority of the Petrine Office behind it.

One thing to keep in mind is that AL was very vague when it mentioned things such as divorced and remarried taking the sacraments. In the days and weeks after it came out, many theologians dissected that part of the document and came to contradictory conclusions on what exactly it was allowing, or if it was allowing anything at all. Some time later, Cardinal Muller, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, came out and said that the discipline of the Church with regards to divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion has not changed (ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-mller-magisterium-unchanged-by-amoris-laetitia) which seems to pretty much ended that particular debate. Due to all of this confusion, which has been amplified by the media circus that surrounded the synod and AL, my guess is that this was why Archbishop Chaput felt the need to emphasize the guidelines for reception of communion by the divorced and remarried in his document for his Archdiocese.

Most of AL was a dissertation on marriage and the family, not rules or guidelines about the reception of communion. Archbishop Chaput’s document heavily references these sections of the AL, and emphasizes Pope Francis’ exhortation to pastorally accompany the divorced and remarried and treat each situation individually. If your complaint is with Archbishop Chaput’s laying down of the rules for reception of communion by divorced and remarried Catholics in his document, I would argue that having clear and concise guidelines is not opposed to this goal. There is no reason that you cannot both pastorally accompany couples, and still have rules and guidelines for the reception of the sacraments. These two things are not opposed to each other. If Pope Francis wanted a change in the discipline of the Church, he should have said so clearly in AL. He didn’t. I don’t see anything in Archbishop Chaput’s document that contradicts AL. That’s just my perspective on the matter.

 

[godisgood77]

One thing to keep in mind is that AL was very vague when it mentioned things such as divorced and remarried taking the sacraments. In the days and weeks after it came out, many theologians dissected that part of the document and came to contradictory conclusions on what exactly it was allowing, or if it was allowing anything at all. Some time later, Cardinal Muller, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, came out and said that the discipline of the Church with regards to divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion has not changed (ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-mller-magisterium-unchanged-by-amoris-laetitia) which seems to pretty much ended that particular debate. Due to all of this confusion, which has been amplified by the media circus that surrounded the synod and AL, my guess is that this was why Archbishop Chaput felt the need to emphasize this in his document for his Archdiocese.

Most of AL was a dissertation on marriage and the family, not rules or guidelines about the reception of communion. Archbishop Chaput’s document heavily references these sections of the AL, and emphasizes Pope Francis’ exhortation to pastorally accompany the divorced and remarried and treat each situation individually. If your complaint is with Archbishop Chaput’s laying down of the rules for reception of communion by divorced and remarried Catholics in his document, I would argue that having clear and concise guidelines is not opposed to this goal. There is no reason that you cannot both pastorally accompany couples, and still have rules and guidelines for the reception of the sacraments. These two things are not opposed to each other. If Pope Francis wanted a change in the discipline of the Church, he should have said so clearly in AL. He didn’t. I don’t see anything in Archbishop Chaput’s document that contradicts AL. That’s just my perspective on the matter.

Thanks for the response… My beef is actually with Chaput laying down rules that exclude Catholics from participating in the life of the Church. The communion issue is not central the the changes needed as the Pope has stated.

However, I think we are in denial of we believe the Pope did by speak clearly about access to the sacraments for those in so-called irregular situations as he clearly did. I think we have an obligation to consider the teaching at face value first. Only spinsters say otherwise.

Here is a great article on the development of doctrine that took place in AL.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/

 

[deaconjohnO]

Actually, the outrage is based on the fact that the faithful are hearing the Pope and are following his direction, but Ab Chaput wrote his guidelines as if the Pope never wrote AL with the authority of the Petrine Office behind it.

I predicted this would happen in a discussion group at our parish. In a nutshell I predicted that certain factions would pit the “spirit of Francis” and the perceptions of his documents and words against anyone who publicly states something that they have issues with. In this case I believe is the issue of reception of communion to those in an objective state of public mortal sin. Marriage is a public act that is held up and witnessed by the community.

The Archbishop said nothing in contrast to AL. In Fact he reiterated an exhortation of the supreme pontiff, Saint John Paul the Great.

Archbishop Chaput is a wildly popular American prelate who publicly repeated the teachings and words of the supreme pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church regarding communion and those in irregular unions. Those teachings are found in the document Familiaris Consortio. A document that Pope Francis quotes himself in AL.

I believe there is a perception of false division between the pope and the archbishop presented here.

If people view the words of Chaput as a contrast to the words of Pope Francis then they must admit that The exhortation of Pope Francis is in Contrast to that of Saint John Paul the Great. Which is preposterous.
I am sorry about the typos but this is a phone I am using.

 

[godisgood77]

I predicted this would happen in a discussion group at our parish. In a nutshell I predicted that certain factions would pit the “spirit of Francis” and the perceptions of his documents and words against anyone who publicly states something that they have issues with. In this case I believe is the issue of reception of communion to those in an objective state of public mortal sin. Marriage is a public act that is held up and witnessed by the community.

The Archbishop said nothing in contrast to AL. In Fact he reiterated an exhortation of the supreme pontiff, Saint John Paul the Great.

Archbishop Chaput is a wildly popular American prelate who publicly repeated the teachings and words of the supreme pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church regarding communion and those in irregular unions. Those teachings are found in the document Familiaris Consortio. A document that Pope Francis quotes himself in AL.

I believe there is a perception of false division between the pope and the archbishop presented here.

If people view the words of Chaput as a contrast to the words of Pope Francis then they must admit that The exhortation of Pope Francis is in Contrast to that of Saint John Paul the Great. Which is preposterous.
I am sorry about the typos but this is a phone I am using.

Try the article linked below to see the contrast. There is a difference between Pope Francis and Pope JPII… I think this headline frim the article linked below sums it up - “For St. John Paul II, insistence that divorced and civilly remarried must refrain from Communion was a “pastoral and prudential choice.” Now, Pope Francis has made a different choice. The principles laid out by the two popes are the same, they just have adopted different applications.”

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/

The other important point to grasp is the difference of gradualness of the law vs. the law of gradualness - this difference is well articulated on the article.

If you read AL, you will undoubtedly see that Pope Francis has developed Pope JPII teaching further - developed in the method that Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman laid down in his opus on the development of doctrine.

I mentioned this earlier or maybe in another thread, but I was in Denver when Chaput kicked a grade school kid out of school because his parents were gay. A GRADE SCHOOL KID!!! It appears nothing has changed for him. He still advocates to kick those who are in irregular situations out of the life of the Church.

 

[estesbob]

Try the article linked below to see the contrast. There is a difference between Pope Francis and Pope JPII… I think this headline frim the article linked below sums it up - “For St. John Paul II, insistence that divorced and civilly remarried must refrain from Communion was a “pastoral and prudential choice.” Now, Pope Francis has made a different choice. The principles laid out by the two popes are the same, they just have adopted different applications.”

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/

The other important point to grasp is the difference of gradualness of the law vs. the law of gradualness - this difference is well articulated on the article.

If you read AL, you will undoubtedly see that Pope Francis has developed Pope JPII teaching further - developed in the method that Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman laid down in his opus on the development of doctrine.

I mentioned this earlier or maybe in another thread, but I was in Denver when Chaput kicked a grade school kid out of school because his parents were gay. A GRADE SCHOOL KID!!! It appears nothing has changed for him. He still advocates to kick those who are in irregular situations out of the life of the Church.

Were not kicked out. They attended kindergarten were not allowed to enroll for first grade .

As Chaput said at the time :

The idea that Catholic schools should require support for Catholic teaching for admission — and a serious effort from school families to live their Catholic identity faithfully — is reasonable and just,” Chaput wrote.

What he said in Philadelphia was merely annunciating the teachings of the church. He was not taking out anybody- they have rejected the teachings of the church and is pointed out, rightfully so, but that makes them in Ineligible to receive communion.

I disagree with what he did in Denver but I understand why he did it and have a world respect for the Archbishop . I had a little interaction with him in Colorado concerning our parish and what I learned was he is loathe to get involved with the day-to-day operations of a given parish It was the pastor of the church the schools in that decided not to let these children enroll and Chaput backed his decision

 

[phil19034]

Thanks for the response… My beef is actually with Chaput laying down rules that exclude Catholics from participating in the life of the Church. The communion issue is not central the the changes needed as the Pope has stated.

However, I think we are in denial of we believe the Pope did by speak clearly about access to the sacraments for those in so-called irregular situations as he clearly did. I think we have an obligation to consider the teaching at face value first. Only spinsters say otherwise.

Here is a great article on the development of doctrine that took place in AL.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/

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

 

[hwriggles4]

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

Phil 19034:

Good post. I travel frequently to Philadelphia and enjoy visiting there.

I respect Archbishop Chaput, and I hope more bishops follow his lead. He is upholding church teaching.

There are most likely many members of parishes who are lectors and EMHC’s whose marriages are not sacramental in the United States - depending on who the priest is at a particular parish and what diocese they are in. Years ago, I was at one parish (no, I am not joking) where there was a non-Catholic in the choir who often served as an EMHC. I got in a big argument with some family members when I found this out.

Note: I am NOT referring to those Catholics who are divorced and living chastely. Catholics who are divorced and living chastely are in union and communion with the Church. There are quite a few single mothers (and a few single dads) in this situation who are doing the right thing, and some have been granted a decree of nullity or are waiting to hear from the tribunal. Now, those who are divorced and remarried who did not receive a decree of nullity are not in union and communion.

 

[Richard_White]

Very nice! May God grant the divorced and civilly remarried the grace to overcome their struggles and live the way He intends them to. Amen.

 

[godisgood77]

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

Exactly my point, he is simply stating previous teaching as if Pope Francis’ development didn’t exist.

Regarding the excessive use of the word ‘confusion’… I really believe that this is a code word for disagreement. I believe the Pope has been abundantly clear in his teaching. Those who disagree with him are using ‘confusion’ as a smoke screen to ignore him.

 

[estesbob]

Exactly my point, he is simply stating previous teaching as if Pope Francis’ development didn’t exist.

Regarding the excessive use of the word ‘confusion’… I really believe that this is a code word for disagreement. I believe the Pope has been abundantly clear in his teaching. Those who disagree with him are using ‘confusion’ as a smoke screen to ignore him.

I guess there is confusion on some peoples parts sense there is no difference between what Chaput has said Pope Francis has said

 

[godisgood77]

I guess there is confusion on some peoples parts sense there is no difference between what Chaput has said Pope Francis has said

Here is but one example of the differences between what our Pope has said and what Abp Chaput has laid out in his norms…

Pope Francis in AL:

299.  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 integration 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 fruitful 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 different ecclesial services, which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted. **Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel. This integration is also needed in the care and Christian upbringing of their children, who ought to be considered most important”.334

Abp Chaput in his Pastoral Guidelines:

Even where, for the sake of their children, they live under one roof in chaste continence and have received absolution (so that they are free from personal sin), the unhappy fact remains that, objectively speaking, their public state and condition of life in the new relationship are contrary to Christ’s teaching against divorce. Concretely speaking, therefore, where pastors give Communion to divorced and remarried persons trying to live chastely, they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ’s teaching can be set aside.** In other contexts, also, care must be taken to avoid the unintended appearance of an endorsement of divorce and civil remarriage; thus, divorced and civilly remarried persons should not hold positions of responsibility in a parish (e.g. on a parish council), nor should they carry out liturgical ministries or functions (e.g., lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion)**

The Pope calls from discernment of individual cases and overcoming exclusions where possible. The Abp calls for no discernment of individual cases, instead he lays down a blanket norm by instructing that even those who have been absolved and live in chaste continence must be excluded from positions of responsibility at the parish… hence a scarlet letter that is never forgiven.

To deny the contradiction is to be purposefully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

 

[estesbob]

Here is but one example of the differences between what our Pope has said and what Abp Chaput has laid out in his norms…

Pope Francis in AL:

299.  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 integration 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 fruitful 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 different ecclesial services, which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted. **Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel. This integration is also needed in the care and Christian upbringing of their children, who ought to be considered most important”.334

Abp Chaput in his Pastoral Guidelines:

Even where, for the sake of their children, they live under one roof in chaste continence and have received absolution (so that they are free from personal sin), the unhappy fact remains that, objectively speaking, their public state and condition of life in the new relationship are contrary to Christ’s teaching against divorce. Concretely speaking, therefore, where pastors give Communion to divorced and remarried persons trying to live chastely, they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ’s teaching can be set aside.** In other contexts, also, care must be taken to avoid the unintended appearance of an endorsement of divorce and civil remarriage; thus, divorced and civilly remarried persons should not hold positions of responsibility in a parish (e.g. on a parish council), nor should they carry out liturgical ministries or functions (e.g., lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion)**

The Pope calls from discernment of individual cases and overcoming exclusions where possible. The Abp calls for no discernment of individual cases, instead he lays down a blanket norm by instructing that even those who have been absolved and live in chaste continence must be excluded from positions of responsibility at the parish… hence a scarlet letter that is never forgiven.

To deny the contradiction is to be purposefully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

To say the Pope Francis has approved or Divorced remarried Catholics receiving communion is dishonest

 

[godisgood77]

To say the Pope Francis has approved or Divorced remarried Catholics receiving communion is dishonest

I didn’t say that…instead I claimed and showed that there are contradictions in what Chaput is saying and what the Pope taught/is teaching. I don’t know why you or anyone would deny that.

 

[estesbob]

I didn’t say that…instead I claimed and showed that there are contradictions in what Chaput is saying and what the Pope taught/is teaching. I don’t know why you or anyone would deny that.

Because i dont see the contradictions. I am sure if Chaput is wrong the Holy Father will let him know.

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t say that…instead I claimed and showed that there are contradictions in what Chaput is saying and what the Pope taught/is teaching. I don’t know why you or anyone would deny that.

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

which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted

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

 

[jeannetherese]

However, I think we are in denial of we believe the Pope did by speak clearly about access to the sacraments for those in so-called irregular situations as he clearly did. I think we have an obligation to consider the teaching at face value first. Only spinsters say otherwise.

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.