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

[Ginny89]

The Pope has confirmed to the Argentinian Bishops that they have the correct understanding of AL. I agree that he is not misleading them.

So your statement that I said the pope was intending to mislead is false.

So then he has communicated erroneously to the Argentine Bishops? All that remains is whether he did he did so intentionally?

Lets try this again: I do not say now or anywhere in this thread that Pope Francis is lying to the Argentinians about what HE intends as far as AL goes. I have said that such intentions are not the magisterium. BIG difference. His actual teaching to the church IS. And THAT teaching does not say what you say it says. The pope does not have to be malicious to be wrong. He can be sincerely mistaken. Still, this understanding does not form part of the magisterium until the Pope teaches it to the church. He has not.

I’ve not made any arguments - I’ve purposely chosen not to debate here what is theologically correct. For me the thread is about what various Bishops have understood and are doing, the differences (which is disturbing) and the meaning we can take from AL - that’s what I’ve tried to extract. I’m not making personal arguments about what is right. Not without quite a bit more understanding of AL and the various interpretations of it.

It can’t be entirely divorced. AL references much of it.

You’ve made PLENTY of arguments. I’ll list a few:

• The Argentian interpretation is the only authentic interpretation of AL
• The Pope’s letter to the Argentinians is a teaching to the whole church (Asked about Pope Honrius’ letters?..Crickets)
• Willfulness can be considered “diminished” based on the difficulty of ceasing sexual relations in illegitimate ‘marriages’.
  Asked about other difficult scenarios: Does it apply there too? Answer:
  -Marriage is ‘special’ and murder should never be excused in the communion debate.
  Asked for a basis for this distinction…Crickets.
• There are “tangible factors” that make it OK to allow communion for sexually active remarried divorcees based on diminished willfullness (What about polygamists?..Crickets)

Etc etc…

You have made plenty of arguments on this thread. Were you just playing devil’s advocate? Perhaps. But you DID make the arguments.

Referencing something from the catechism is not the same thing as keeping with the magisterium. Just ask Protestants about the Bible. Quoting sections of a large body of work is something anyone can do.

Keeping with the magisterium means NOT CONTRADICTING any part of the magisterium. You are arguing that the ONE interpretation that MAKES SURE no such contradiction occurs is the only one to be excluded from AL. Hermeneutic of discontinuity.

 

[Rau]

1. You ask for my interpretation of AL
2. I give it to you explaining that it is unclear and can be read in keeping with the Cardinal Muller Position or the Argentinian one or the Maltese/German/Canadian one.
3. You come back arguing “No- it cant; the Argentinian one is the correct one”, and even say things about unanimity about AL being meant to change/add stuff.
4. I SAY to you that there is no such clarity
5. And then you accuse me for “strawmen” about your claims on clarity.

The facts are simpler.

You believe and state that AL presents no change to the prior practice, and thus that it re-confirms that a commitment to continence is the minimum criterion for re-married persons to be admitted to the sacraments.

I believe AL does suggest a change. I believe this not on the grounds of definitive statements in the document rejecting the prior position, nor on the basis of any personal view about the relevant theology, but rather by observing a significantly greater weight of evidence supporting that view, comprising arguments presented in AL * and in the Pope’s response to the Argentine Bishops.

So are you or are you NOT insisting that AL cannot be read in keeping with the rest of the church’s magisterium that precedes it?

I am saying that, in my judgement, it stretches credulity to read the document and conclude it admits/intends no departure from prior practice. [Far fewer words, and quite different words, could have been used to re-state the prior practice, and the Argentinian proposal would have received a different response.]

Moreover, you are demanding that you ought to advance such arguments and have me not draw the logical conclusion from the arguments you are making that there is clarity that AL reverses JP II’s teaching that sacraments are not available to couples who don’t commit to incontinence.

That paragraph is impenetrable (to me). I’ve no idea what it means. I hope my responses earlier are clear though.*

 

[Ginny89]

And the document is not just saying “we can’t see the full subjective situation” - it’s saying that the actual subjective situation may be such as to greatly lessen culpability.

A difference without real meaning in the context of this discussion and my own statements. Yes, they diminish culpability. How can you tell?

And the catechism quotes does not create a special situation for marriage. AL takes that general teaching and applies it to this one sin. I asked you about others. Do you think that section of the Catechism is inapplicable unless the sin is adultery?

 

[Ginny89]

The facts are simpler.

You believe and state that AL presents no change to the prior practice, and thus that it re-confirms that a commitment to continence is the minimum criterion for re-married persons to be admitted to the sacraments.

I believe AL does suggest a change. I believe this not on the grounds of definitive statements in the document rejecting the prior position, nor on the basis of any personal view about the relevant theology, but rather by observing a significantly greater weight of evidence supporting that view, comprising arguments presented in AL * and in the Pope’s response to the Argentine Bishops.

I am saying that, in my judgement, it stretches credulity to read the document and conclude it admits/intends no departure from prior practice. [Far fewer words, and quite different words, could have been used to re-state the prior practice, and the Argentinian proposal would have received a different response.]

That paragraph is impenetrable (to me). I’ve no idea what it means. I hope my responses earlier are clear though.*
You have admitted that AL does not reverse previous teaching, at least in no quote that you have provided. I have made clear my position that my duty as a catholic is to choose the interpretation that does not contradict previous magisterial teachings, INSPITE of what I think the pope may want from his document.

You have made clear your circumference of contextualuzing the teaching is current events of about one year. Mine is 2000 years of catholic teaching on sacraments.

The difference is that I see any individual pope as a mere instrument who can be used to teach truth even inspite of himself and his plans. You clearly see the pope as a person as the ground for understanding all he teaches to the church. That explains the difference.

 

[Rau]

…I do not say now or anywhere in this thread that Pope Francis is lying to the Argentinians about what HE intends as far as AL goes. I have said that such intentions are not the magisterium. BIG difference. His actual teaching to the church IS. And THAT teaching does not say what you say it says.

It is irrational to say that the simple and definitive statement of the Pope ought to be discarded. Or to hold that the Pope can knowingly encourage, praise and sanction a set of Bishops in a direction contrary to his authentic teaching. And in a document that is now public. And verified by the Vatican as authentic. And not retracted or corrected over these many months. I don’t understand how you can suggest this might be a “sincere mistake” of the Pope. It seems to be his deliberate will.

You’ve made PLENTY of arguments.

Much of what you wrote (such as the very first in the list viz: “The Argentinian interpretation is the only authentic interpretation of AL”) were in fact positions expressed by the Pope, not me.

You are arguing that the ONE interpretation that MAKES SURE no such contradiction occurs is the only one to be excluded from AL. Hermeneutic of discontinuity.

I’m not seeking to exclude. I am reading the document and judging what it seems to be saying. I’m sorry - but it *seems *to be saying what the Argentinians thought. And then the Pope told them “that’s right”.

You are arguing that the document could not be saying anything that (in your personal judgement) departs from the prior practice. I’m prepared to be patient and not throw up my hands and abandon the Church because I can’t fully reconcile the prior with what seems to be the new. I suspect understanding and resolution will come in time.

 

[Ginny89]

It is irrational to say that the simple and definitive statement of the Pope ought to be discarded. Or to hold that the Pope can knowingly encourage, praise and sanction a set of Bishops in a direction contrary to his authentic teaching. And in a document that is now public. And verified by the Vatican as authentic. And not retracted or corrected over these many months. I don’t understand how you can suggest this might be a “sincere mistake” of the Pope. It seems to be his deliberate will.

Dear Jesus.

It IS his deliberate will. I have said so several times now!!! There is NO DOUBT ANYWHERE about Pope Francis’ private positions on the matter at issue. HE AGREES with the Argentianians. Capiche? No one is denying that.

It is NOT his teaching to the church. It is his private position that he has refused to teach to the whole church in AL or anywhere else.

Much of what you wrote (such as the very first in the list viz: “The Argentinian interpretation is the only authentic interpretation of AL”) were in fact positions expressed by the Pope, not me.

I’m not seeking to exclude. I am reading the document and judging what it seems to be saying. I’m sorry - but it *seems *to be saying what the Argentinians thought. And then the Pope told them “that’s right”.

You are arguing that the document could not be saying anything that (in your personal judgement) departs from the prior practice. I’m prepared to be patient and not throw up my hands and abandon the Church because I can’t fully reconcile the prior with what seems to be the new. I suspect understanding and resolution will come in time.

I see what the issue is here: I am operating from the point of view that knows the pope can speak to the whole church as in AL and the SAME pope can speak on the SAME issue but without the same authority to members of the church in other contexts.

Bottom line: You think AL has the same weight as anything else the pope says to anyone else about it that he does not address to the church. I dont.

 

[Ginny89]

It is irrational to say that the simple and definitive statement of the Pope ought to be discarded. Or to hold that the Pope can knowingly encourage, praise and sanction a set of Bishops in a direction contrary to his authentic teaching. And in a document that is now public. And verified by the Vatican as authentic. And not retracted or corrected over these many months. I don’t understand how you can suggest this might be a “sincere mistake” of the Pope. It seems to be his deliberate will.

Another thing, wbich Ive already stated elsewhere:

It is not my job as a catholic to understand the DELIBERATE WILL of a reigning pope. The pope WHEN HE SPEAKS TO THE WHOLE CHURCH is an instrument of a HIGHER author than himself. One with 2000 years of works under his belt. It is my job to understand ANY pope’s teaching in keeping with the churchs whole teaching which shows the DELIBERATE WILL of the one who matters. The only person whose deliberate will I am required to try to discern and follow is that author of whom the pope is an instrument and who has been teaching and writing for 2000 years. That is why a papal statement to the whole church as such is many degrees different from private letters intended for the reading of a few.

Some people think the popes intention for his statements to the church is the same thing as the statements themselves. That is only true if the pope is the ultimate source of all he teaches to the church. But there is a reason the church is always distinguishing between papal teachings to the church as such and papal statements not written as such. Because we are not just concerned about the man now serving as pope but another author whose will may be different from a pope who pens a teaching for the whole church.

 

[Rau]

…It IS his deliberate will. I have said so several times now!!! There is NO DOUBT ANYWHERE about Pope Francis’ private positions on the matter at issue. HE AGREES with the Argentianians. Capiche? No one is denying that.

AND he has declared to them that this is what AL says. He didn’t say - “I feel I had to teach X, but, you know, I’m kinda leaning to Y”. No he deliberately, explicitly and definitively encouraged them in a direction contrary to (what you’ve said is) authentic Church teaching. This is a grave charge you have levelled against the Pope.

It is NOT his teaching to the church. It is his private position that he has refused to teach to the whole church in AL or anywhere else.

Whether or not it’s contained within AL is the very matter in debate. It is only your interpretation - your preferred “reading” of the document - that it is not.

I see what the issue is here: I am operating from the point of view that knows the pope can speak to the whole church as in AL and the SAME pope can speak on the SAME issue but without the same authority to members of the church in other contexts.

I think it is a HUGE leap to say that the Pope contradicts his own Exhortation (as you read it) and encourages the Church in Argentina in a direction contrary to what in your view is the authentic Church Teaching. Wow. That’s not the sort of thing we generally have in mind when considering the personal opinions of Pope’s and Bishops etc.

Bottom line: You think AL has the same weight as anything else the pope says to anyone else about it that he does not address to the church. I dont.

I’ve addressed one specific definitive statement, in which he declared the meaning of a section of AL, not more. Your broad statement is another strawman.

 

[Rau]

…That is why a papal statement to the whole church as such is many degrees different from private letters intended for the reading of a few.

The letter was intended to guide the Church in Argentina in its understanding of and implementation of a Papal Statement. It was not some private musings between brother bishops. And now that that letter is public, and authenticated by the Vatican, it can very reasonably be said to influence many other Episcopates.

 

[Ginny89]

AND he has declared to them that this is what AL says. He didn’t say - “I feel I had to teach X, but, you know, I’m kinda leaning to Y”. No he deliberately, explicitly and definitively encouraged them in a direction contrary to (what you’ve said is) authentic Church teaching. This is a grave charge you have levelled against the Pope.

Whether or not it’s contained within AL is the very matter in debate. It is only your interpretation - your preferred “reading” of the document - that it is not.

I think it is a HUGE leap to say that the Pope contradicts his own Exhortation (as you read it) and encourages the Church in Argentina in a direction contrary to what in your view is the authentic Church Teaching. Wow. That’s not the sort of thing we generally have in mind when considering the personal opinions of Pope’s and Bishops etc.

I’ve addressed one specific definitive statement, in which he declared the meaning of a section of AL, not more. Your broad statement is another strawman.

Ill ask one more time: pope Honorius similarly encouraged Eastern Bishops in a heretical teaching on a far more fundamental issue than receiption of communion: the very nature of Christ himself. By this understanding, do you think Honorious was teaching the heresy to the whole church??

 

[Rau]

Ill ask one more time: pope Honorius similarly encouraged Eastern Bishops in a heretical teaching on a far more fundamental issue than receiption of communion: the very nature of Christ himself. By this understanding, do you think Honorious was teaching the heresy to the whole church??

I’m sorry I know NIL of this subject and I’m sure to comment meaningfully would require much research.

 

[Ginny89]

The letter was intended to guide the Church in Argentina in its understanding of and implementation of a Papal Statement. It was not some private musings between brother bishops. And now that that letter is public, and authenticated by the Vatican, it can very reasonably be said to influence many other Episcopates.

Same question as above: Do you regard Pope Honorius’ letter to a section of bishops that battled another on a fundamental issue of the faith, was a teaching to the whole church, or just those bishops.

 

[Ginny89]

I’m sorry I no NIL of this subject and I’m sure to comment meaningfully would require much research.

How convenient.

 

[Rau]

Same question as above: Do you regard Pope Honorius’ letter…

Same answer as above.

 

[Rau]

How convenient.

That’s your interpretation. The more charitable one is that it’s simply the truth.

 

[Ginny89]

AND he has declared to them that this is what AL says. He didn’t say - “I feel I had to teach X, but, you know, I’m kinda leaning to Y”. No he deliberately, explicitly and definitively encouraged them in a direction contrary to (what you’ve said is) authentic Church teaching. This is a grave charge you have levelled against the Pope.

Oh sure. It is soooo much better to claim that Pope Francus has formally contradicted 2000 years of church teaching. Thats sooo much better for the church and this pope, isnt it?

I think it is a HUGE leap to say that the Pope contradicts his own Exhortation (as you read it) and encourages the Church in Argentina in a direction contrary to what in your view is the authentic Church Teaching. Wow. That’s not the sort of thing we generally have in mind when considering the personal opinions of Pope’s and Bishops etc.

I think it is a much bigger leap to say that in catholic teaching, an explicit teaching to the whole church clearly intended as such, is the same as a teaching to a section of the church, in weight, when the former has not been repeated–UPON REPEATED REQUESTS–either to the whole church or even the section of bishops who have explictly rejected the Argentinian interpretation as contradicting catholic magisterium.

I also (FOR THE NTH TIME) do not doubt that the pope has the same intentions in writing the Argentians as he did in writing AL. I just know God did not let him put the Argentian position in the document the pope presented to ALL CATHOLIC BISHOPS in AL. His personal inclinations, plans, intentions are besides the point. It is HOW his teaching is to be reconciled with the teaching of ALL popes that matters.

I’ve addressed one specific definitive statement, in which he declared the meaning of a section of AL, not more.

A “definitive statement” that was not taught to the whole church and in fact has NOT been repeated to any other bishops who have sought clarification precisely in response to that Argentian interpretation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Don - earlier in this thread you declined (in the terms quoted above) to help us understand, how it can be that 2 sets of Bishops - in publicly available documents - express 2 different understandings as to the circumstances under which the divorced and civilly remarried may receive communion.

The subset of Canadian Bishops (and various other Bishops, eg the Phili Archdiocese) are quite explicit that a resolve to live in continence is a prerequisite for reception of the sacraments. The Argentinian Bishops are equally explicit that there can be scenarios where that resolve is not a prerequisite (and the Pope has confirmed that the Argentinians have the correct interpretation of the relevant section of AL).

Will you reconsider your decision not to comment further given your comments to date suggest you may have a greater insight?

Absolutely not. Under no circumstance will I add any comment.

If you are laity, your proper response is complete docility to your bishop.

Those who are clergy will implement the directive that is decided by the bishop.

 

[Ginny89]

That’s your interpretation. The more charitable one is that it’s simply the truth.

You mean like the more charitable thing is to flatly state that I have said the pope intended to mislead? Yeah, lets talk about how charitably we are to construe others’ statements.

 

[Rau]

Oh sure. It is soooo much better to claim that Pope Francus has formally contradicted 2000 years of church teaching. Thats sooo much better for the church and this pope, isnt it?

Ginny - it’s NOT my claim. It is a claim you have made in respect of his communication to the Argentinian Bishops. It follows directly from what you have said. Or is that letter not “formal” enough to count for anything?

I just know God did not let him put the Argentian position in the document the pope presented to ALL CATHOLIC BISHOPS in AL.

You are assuming the issue in debate. This is merely your interpretation.

A “definitive statement” that was not taught to the whole church and in fact has NOT been repeated to any other bishops who have sought clarification precisely in response to that Argentian interpretation.

Regarding that last point - how would you know Ginny? Private letters etc.

I imagine that had the Pope written to the Argentinian Bishops and told them they had misunderstood entirely, and what he meant was…“no change to previous practice”… you would not be unwilling to point to that as a proper elucidation of AL?

 

[Ginny89]

I’m sorry I know NIL of this subject and I’m sure to comment meaningfully would require much research.

Ok, so you cannot disprove my reading of the letter to the Argentinians in the same way I read Pope Honorius letter to an entire section of the Church back in the day. My position: that incident and the consequent condemnation of that pope for those letters proves that such letters are not the same as the teachings intended as a teaching to the whole church to be read by all bishops. I will therefore continue to follow the lead of the head of the CDF, Cardinal Muller, and regard the only authentic interpretation as that which DOES NOT CONTRADICT Catholic teaching. Pope Francis and the Aregentinians, to the extent that they do, are wrong.