Canadian bishops: no change in policy on Communion for divorced/remarried

[dans0622]

Perhaps these bishops from Canada can submit their “guidelines” to the Pope to see if he thinks they are in accord with his own “mind.”

Dan

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They are not, however, identical, no?

That question is inane.

 

[Ginny89]

I am most familiar with both sets of guidelines. They are not in contradiction.

A contradiction has just been demonstrated above. It is hardly a response to give an unsupported assertion like this here.

 

[Ginny89]

Actually they do.

**The Canadian bishops:****In the case where the tribunal upholds the validity of the first union, obedience in faith to the indissolubility of marriage **as revealed by Christ will make clear to them the actions that must follow. They are bound to live with the consequences of that truth as part of their witness to Christ and his teaching on marriage.This may be difficult. If, for example, they are unable to separate for the sake of the care of children, they will need to refrain from sexual intimacy and live in chastity “as brother and sister” (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 84). Such a firm resolution to live in accordance with the teaching of Christ, relying always on the help of his grace, opens to them the possibility of celebrating the sacrament of Penance, which in turn may lead to the reception of Holy Communion at Mass.
To be clear, going to Confession and ultimately Communion depends on the remarried divorcees separating or, if that is problematic for the children, living as brother and sister. No other alternative is offered.

The Argentinian Bishops:

5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf. note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).

Notice how the Argentinian bishops present the continence option (living as brother and sister) merely as something “feasible” in “concrete circumstances” - not as something *necessary *in order to avoid adultery.

BTW Saint John Paul II doesn’t say what they claim he says, but commenting on that would make the post too long. Read his entire letter here.

**6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
**
And here we have it, all quite plain and unambiguous. The “aforementioned option” refers to the continence option mentioned (rather hesitantly) in heading 5. Here, the remarried divorcee - although committing a sin in engaging in sex with his/her partner - may have “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability”. So, according to the Argentinian bishops, adultery is not always mortal sin. Adultery is further excused if the children are damaged by a “subsequent fault” - presumably one partner leaving another when he/she is no longer sexually satisfied. These sexually active cohabiting partners may go to Confession and receive Communion without having to practise continence - that’s covered in heading 5.

This obvious and irreconcilable dichotomy in the hierarchy can be resolved only by a clear intervention by the Pope, not by pretending it doesn’t exist.

The Holy Father has for the present thrown his weight behind the Argentinian bishops:The document [the Argentinian bishops’ directives] is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.

If only they had stopped at the 5th paragraph. It can be read in an orthodox manner. It is the 6th… the 6th that makes it irremediable.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If only they had stopped at the 5th paragraph. It can be read in an orthodox manner. It is the 6th… the 6th that makes it irremediable.

No, actually, not in the least…for those of us who are implementing the provisions of Amoris Laetitia.

 

[pnewton]

A contradiction has just been demonstrated above. It is hardly a response to give an unsupported assertion like this here.

A difference is not a contradiction. The Canadian document allows for referral to the bishop.

 

[Rau]

Actually they do.

**The Canadian bishops:****In the case where the tribunal upholds the validity of the first union, obedience in faith to the indissolubility of marriage **as revealed by Christ will make clear to them the actions that must follow. They are bound to live with the consequences of that truth as part of their witness to Christ and his teaching on marriage.This may be difficult. If, for example, they are unable to separate for the sake of the care of children, they will need to refrain from sexual intimacy and live in chastity “as brother and sister” (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 84). Such a firm resolution to live in accordance with the teaching of Christ, relying always on the help of his grace, opens to them the possibility of celebrating the sacrament of Penance, which in turn may lead to the reception of Holy Communion at Mass.
To be clear, going to Confession and ultimately Communion depends on the remarried divorcees separating or, if that is problematic for the children, living as brother and sister. No other alternative is offered.

The Argentinian Bishops:

5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf. note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).

Notice how the Argentinian bishops present the continence option (living as brother and sister) merely as something “feasible” in “concrete circumstances” - not as something *necessary *in order to avoid adultery.

BTW Saint John Paul II doesn’t say what they claim he says, but commenting on that would make the post too long. Read his entire letter here.

**6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
**
And here we have it, all quite plain and unambiguous. The “aforementioned option” refers to the continence option mentioned (rather hesitantly) in heading 5. Here, the remarried divorcee - although committing a sin in engaging in sex with his/her partner - may have “limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability”. So, according to the Argentinian bishops, adultery is not always mortal sin. Adultery is further excused if the children are damaged by a “subsequent fault” - presumably one partner leaving another when he/she is no longer sexually satisfied. These sexually active cohabiting partners may go to Confession and receive Communion without having to practise continence - that’s covered in heading 5.

This obvious and irreconcilable dichotomy in the hierarchy can be resolved only by a clear intervention by the Pope, not by pretending it doesn’t exist.

The Holy Father has for the present thrown his weight behind the Argentinian bishops:The document [the Argentinian bishops’ directives] is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.

While noting the different tones and emphasis, both models, prior to para 6 require an intention to live in continence. And should they fail, they are of course free to confess their sin, promise to try again and thus regain access to communion.

Or have I misread something?

Para 6 seems to produce a carve out which I find bizarre. It seem to be saying it’s OK to not even try to live in continence (for various reasons).

 

[Rau]

I am most familiar with both sets of guidelines. They are not in contradiction.

Agreed - not a “contradiction” per se.

But the Argentinians do seem to establish different moral pre-conditions to access the sacraments. For them, there can be circumstances wherein the couple would not be required to *endeavour *to live in continence - and in those circumstances may freely access the sacraments. Thus, the question arises: Would their sexual acts constitute sins that ought to be confessed? I assume not given they are not required to try to avoid them.

Don - how do we understand these differing positions? Is this the kind of matter where different Bishops can take a different stance? Or does the difference reflect a differing opinion about what is morally right?

 

[Ginny89]

While noting the different tones and emphasis, both models, prior to para 6 require an intention to live in continence. And should they fail, they are of course free to confess their sin, promise to try again and thus regain access to communion.

Or have I misread something?

Para 6 seems to produce a carve out which I find bizarre. It seem to be saying it’s OK to not even try to live in continence (for various reasons).

Thats exactly how I read it too. It is starting from the 2nd sentence of the 6th paragraph that things go haywire. Everything prior to that can be read in an orthodox way.

 

[pnewton]

Para 6 seems to produce a carve out which I find bizarre. It seem to be saying it’s OK to not even try to live in continence (for various reasons).

If we go back to Amoris Laetitia, there must be some sort of "carve out, " as you eloquently described it. The whole point of pastoral accompaniment is that people are not seen as categories, or as in the Canadian document, flow charts. I guess the bishop who wrote this wanted tight control over any exceptions to the rules, so he place himself, and I assume his office, as a referral point to anyone that had an issue a tribunal could not address.

 

[pnewton]

Thats exactly how I read it too. It is starting from the 2nd sentence of the 6th paragraph that things go haywire. Everything prior to that can be read in an orthodox way.

As I have said numerous times, I have no problem reading it in an orthodox way; a progressive, as opposed to traditional way, but a way that remains orthodox, as I do Amoris Laetitia. “Orthodox” has a specific meaning that I do not think applies here.

 

[Ginny89]

As I have said numerous times, I have no problem reading it in an orthodox way; a progressive, as opposed to traditional way, but a way that remains orthodox, as I do Amoris Laetitia. “Orthodox” has a specific meaning that I do not think applies here.

If it does not contradict Familiaris Consortio, its orthodox. There. I am going to use orthodox to mean what popes have taught. Feel free to quote a papal teaching that reverses John Paul II’s. In the mean time, I will continue to use orthodox to refer to that same 2000 year old teaching and what does not allow what it forbids or forbid what it allows only.

 

[Pulvis]

If it does not contradict Familiaris Consortio, its orthodox. There. I am going to use orthodox to mean what popes have taught. Feel free to quote a papal teaching that reverses John Paul II’s. In the mean time, I will continue to use orthodox to refer to that same 2000 year old teaching and what does not allow what it forbids or forbid what it allows only.

 

[pnewton]

If it does not contradict Familiaris Consortio, its orthodox. There. I am going to use orthodox to mean what popes have taught. Feel free to quote a papal teaching that reverses John Paul II’s. In the mean time, I will continue to use orthodox to refer to that same 2000 year old teaching and what does not allow what it forbids or forbid what it allows only.

Very well. You are correct. Everything prior to paragraph 6 can be read in an orthodox way. I read that on in an orthodox way too, by the way. As long as you do not claim it is heretical, then there is no need to understand everything. There is more than one orthodox understanding to a whole lot of Catholic theology. That was my only point.

I should know by now not to see anything implied in phrases like, “up until that point”.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If it does not contradict Familiaris Consortio, its orthodox. There. I am going to use orthodox to mean what popes have taught. Feel free to quote a papal teaching that reverses John Paul II’s. In the mean time, I will continue to use orthodox to refer to that same 2000 year old teaching and what does not allow what it forbids or forbid what it allows only.

And my

 

[Thomas_White]

I am most familiar with both sets of guidelines. They are not in contradiction.

Maybe so with respect to nuances of the guidelines, but If one set of guidelines provides that a person unable to obtain an annulment of a first marriage must, in a subsequent irregular marriage, live as brother and sister if he/she is to receive communion and another set allows for an exception in certain circumstances, how is it that these differing practices would not differ?

 

[Rau]

If we go back to Amoris Laetitia, there must be some sort of "carve out, " as you eloquently described it. The whole point of pastoral accompaniment is that people are not seen as categories, or as in the Canadian document, flow charts. I guess the bishop who wrote this wanted tight control over any exceptions to the rules, so he place himself, and I assume his office, as a referral point to anyone that had an issue a tribunal could not address.

It is not explained how what was objective is now subjective. I am yet to here a reason for why one couple would be obliged to try to live in continence and another not. Nor how that distinction could be influenced by where they live - unless the issue is now reduced to a matter of discipline.

 

[Beautiful]

It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest. This view is erroneous.

That is exactly what has been happening Podunk USA for the past several decades. I know this with certainty and don’t like it. I’ve rejected it and will continue. And now with Amoris Laetitia I remain unchanged and committed to the truth of what adultery is and is not.

Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Mark 10:9

I finally weighed in on this. The weight of Truth will bear down heavily on those that mess with the Word of God. Be watchful and pray to remain in Christ.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I finally weighed in on this. The weight of Truth will bear down heavily on those that mess with the Word of God. Be watchful and pray to remain in Christ.

Noone is messing with those words of Jesus.
The issue is rather:
(1) Was I actually joined by God in my first marriage;
(2) Is Communion ever possible for those in an active 2nd marriage if the status of the first cannot be clearly determined by a Tribunal.

 

[Beautiful]

Noone is messing with those words of Jesus.
The issue is rather:
(1) Was I actually joined by God in my first marriage;
(2) Is Communion ever possible for those in an active 2nd marriage if the status of the first cannot be clearly determined by a Tribunal.

Do you know that percentage of people? That percentage is probably quite small.
I assume now we are talking about people that have sought an annulment (only).
For years, I’ve witnessed enough divorced/remarried Catholics carry on as usual without an annulment.

The group of divorced/remarrieds without an annulment yet receiving Holy Communion can’t be managed anymore than those pro abortion Catholics seen receiving Holy Communion. It is all a matter of conscience. God is the judge of all. Not me.

There will always be people that test boundaries for self interest.

I rely on the boundaries of Mother Church to guide and protect my soul. Maybe at times we all find ourselves perilously skating the boundaries. God only knows.

Lord have Mercy!