"Filial correction"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vadne
  • Start date Start date
rcwitness said:
You initially say that pastoral guidance might lead to discovering that a first marriage may not be valid.

That process should already be practiced! Anyone thinking of divorce, or going through it, should seek their pastor’s knowledge (and everyone else they trust, along with Church Teaching).

No one can be considered by the Tribunal without a pastor’s support. How would they get that support without his working with the candidates?

Then you suggest “private reception of Sacraments”.

What is that?

Reconciliation should always be private, but Communion should not be (unless one is unable to make it to Mass).
Click to expand...
I’m referring to a hypothetical case in which the tribunal can’t be approached, or one in which the tribunal has arrived at an erroneous conclusion due to conflicting evidence or testimony. I’m not saying that this type of situation is common, but I can see how it could arise. The tribunals are not infallible, and they can only make a ruling based on the evidence presented to them (and in some places they may be corrupt). I’m thinking of the cases then Cardinal Ratzinger highlighted in this document:
Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.
Click to expand...
If someone is morally certain that their first marriage was not a real marriage, and their Pastor has examined their situation with them and comes to the same conclusion, then I can see how private reception of the Sacraments would be warranted and beneficial. The guidelines would have to be very clear, and Pastors would have to be instructed in the proper application of such oikonomia. Unfortunately our current situation is anything but clear, and there are no universal guidelines.

continued…
 
As for private reception of Communion, this would be in the case of potential scandal. Obviously the norm is to receive publicly, but this is a matter of of ecclesial law and not Divine law. I can see how this rule could be softened in such cases to allow Communion without giving scandal to the parish. Again the guidelines would have to be clear and Canon Law may have to be modified, but I can see how this would be compatible with standing tradition if handled properly.

Peace and God bless!
 
Oneofthewomen said:
My husband was heartbroken, and he was the “practicing” Catholic.
Click to expand...
Ok. So your husband was so put off by the priest who refused to marry you in his parish and so he chose another Venue for his Marriage.

Certainly people do impulsive things when young and immature.
 
Rau said:
husband was so put off by the priest who refused to marry you in his parish and so he chose another Venue for his Marriage.
Click to expand...
I don’t know… sister faustina said first by deed, next by word, then by prayer. That is pretty good guidance in my view.
 
Rau said:
Ok. So your husband was so put off by the priest who refused to marry you in his parish and so he chose another Venue for his Marriage.

Certainly people do impulsive things when young and immature.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some charity and gentleness is in order when speaking about this situation. People make mistakes, but if they return it is better to welcome them with love, like the father of the prodigal son, than to highlight their immaturity.

Greeting with a gauntlet instead of warm hand won’t win many people back, and in this circumstance especially there was good reason for the couple to be put off by the inappropriate actions of the priest.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
I can see some rare situations in which careful discernment, with the guidance of a Pastor, might indicate that the first marriage was indeed invalid despite lacking a tribunal ruling (or perhaps even contrary to the tribunal’s ruling). After prayerful consideration by the penitent and Pastor I can see where private reception of the Sacraments might be warranted in some of these cases.
Click to expand...
AL is certainly not definitively saying that a Priest can or may make such a determination (that prior marriage is invalid), as it canvasses broader circumstances, though it hints that such doubts might be in the mix. I do recall other posters (e_c comes to mind) pointing out that the juridical procedure is important.
Ghosty1981 said:
If this was as far as it went, and the guidelines were carefully laid out, I would have no objections to AL. Instead we find ourselves in a situation where some Bishops take the pre-AL approach, some take the approach I just indicated, and some leave it entirely up to the “feelings” of the penitent and cut the priest out of the decision making. All three of these positions have been publicly put forward as “genuine interpretations” of AL.
Click to expand...
In my view, those really aren’t “interpretations” - some might be described as filling in the blanks (where there is lack of set criteria). Some will tell you the Pope intentionally leaves it to Bishops to take up this AL process or stick with the old (ostensibly choosing what is ‘right’ for the particular diocese), though I think that is a stretch. I’d suggest the last of your “interpretation” is plainly contrary to what AL does say.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
If someone is morally certain that their first marriage was not a real marriage, and their Pastor has examined their situation with them and comes to the same conclusion, then I can see how private reception of the Sacraments would be warranted and beneficial.
Click to expand...
Begs the question whether this should give rise to an annulment, rather than a half-way house. And in either case, one wonders about the status of “private reception”. The granting of annulments is not public information today either, and those whose first marriage is annulled are not ever required to receive privately AFAIK.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
Perhaps some charity and gentleness is in order when speaking about this situation. People make mistakes, but if they return it is better to welcome them with love, like the father of the prodigal son, than to highlight their immaturity.
Click to expand...
I don’t intend to lack charity or gentleness.

In fact, I don’t think the poster did anything wrong at all pursuant to the refusal by the errant priest. Immaturity was not really on her. That she had drifted from the Church and since returned is entirely praiseworthy. But it was intemperate to sum up her circumstances with the statements:
Oneofthewomen said:
I was in an irregular marriage, BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH.
Click to expand...
and then to connect that idea with AL:
Oneofthewomen said:
I have discussed the document with many priests, and all agree that these guidelines are long overdue.
Click to expand...
No Church rule, let alone one that needed changing [which was the initial implication], gave rise to her unfortunate situation.
 
Last edited:
I am not going to argue with you.
Maybe “guideline”, was not the right word.
What AL has done is remind Pastor’s of souls that not everything is back & white.

Yes, the Church pushed us away. Whether it was one man or not, I can see that now, but then, no.

And that is the whole point. For many years, many people were not cared for in any sort of pastoral sense. Life s messy. Jesus knew this, many of the Saints knew this, and all Pope Francis has done with AL is try to remind everyone of that.
 
Last edited:
Giving scandal is a sin. But one must remember that taking scandal is also a sin.
 
How could a priest know better than the Tribunal whether a marriage was valid or not?

I know these days annulments are handed out like candy, but now we’re even talking about circumventing a wide open door… This is why Pope Francis is dealing with this situation and it’s only going to get worse. There are two Churches in all but name right now and the time is begining to end when any person can straddle the line between both.
 
Rau said:
AL is certainly not definitively saying that a Priest can or may make such a determination (that prior marriage is invalid), as it canvasses broader circumstances, though it hints that such doubts might be in the mix. I do recall other posters (e_c comes to mind) pointing out that the juridical procedure is important.
Click to expand...
You’re right, it doesn’t lay this out clearly. That is my problem with the document: it lays out a great case for pastoral discernment, and then casually sidesteps both Canon Law and previous rulings by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the writings of previous Popes with a footnote. No guidance is given on how this change is to be implemented and applied, and this has led to widely differing interpretations and implementations. Some of these interpretations appear to undercut Catholic moral teaching, and that is a major concern.
Rau said:
In my view, those really aren’t “interpretations” - some might be described as filling in the blanks (where there is lack of set criteria). Some will tell you the Pope intentionally leaves it to Bishops to take up this AL process or stick with the old (ostensibly choosing what is ‘right’ for the particular diocese), though I think that is a stretch. I’d suggest the last of your “interpretation” is plainly contrary to what AL does say.
Click to expand...
From the guidelines issued by the Bishops of Malta:
If, as a result of the process of discernment,
undertaken with “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”
(AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living
in a new relationship manages, with an informed and
enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe
> that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot
> be precluded from participating in the sacraments of
> Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and
> 351).
Click to expand...
According to these Bishops, Pope Francis condoned their interpretation and implementation of Amoris Laetitia. I think you can see how this would be a problem.
Begs the question whether this should give rise to an annulment, rather than a half-way house. And in either case, one wonders about the status of “private reception”. The granting of annulments is not public information today either, and those whose first marriage is annulled are not ever required to receive privately AFAIK.
Click to expand...
I’m merely throwing out ideas that might address concerns about scandal. I am no moral theologian nor canon lawyer. 😅
 
ChunkMonk said:
How could a priest know better than the Tribunal whether a marriage was valid or not?

I know these days annulments are handed out like candy, but now we’re even talking about circumventing a wide open door… This is why Pope Francis is dealing with this situation and it’s only going to get worse. There are two Churches in all but name right now and the time is begining to end when any person can straddle the line between both.
Click to expand...
I’m merely repeating what Cardinal Ratzinger stated as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as I cited in a previous post. This notion that a tribunal might be in error, and that internal forum might be applied in such circumstances, was left as an open question that requires further discernment. I’m simply pointing out that this is one avenue where I could see a change in practice, just as Cardinal Ratzinger noted before. I’m not saying with certainty that this solution could or should be applied, merely that it isn’t ruled out by existing tradition and moral theology.
 
Is there any need for all of this? Has everyone forgotten the power of our prayers for our Holy Father?
I believe this correction is an answer to prayer, and I believe with more prayer, our Holy Father will respond and clarify.

The Devil wants us to divide. The devil wants us to live in dissension. Only in unity can we conquer evil.
 
YAWN-------people have tried what you’ve done before on here.

Also, censorship always backfires.
 
graciew said:
**This is your first and last private message to me.,Súper Luigi **
Public and reported now.
Súper Luigi wrote to me:

"Your censorship efforts will fail.

Because of this and because of Pope Francis and the USCCB, I am not financially supporting the Catholic Church.

I may soon be calling for the resignation of Pope Francis.

Enjoy! "
Click to expand...
You’re such a baby.
 
Last edited:
And it so misleading for those who are in good faith following Cardinal Burke in his Dubia,luring people into this doubtful letter,that despite not being in agreement with the Dubia,I have tried to warn the people of good faith about this .org site.,
Cardinal Burke hasn t signed into and may not even be in agreement.
I am Catholic ,first.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top