"Filial correction"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vadne
  • Start date Start date
That’s why I wanted to see a list of signatories.

I can understand why Pope Francis hasn’t (and likely will not) respond. Framing this as something that hasn’t happened since the 1300s, though, seems a bit far-fetched. A group of theologians also got together and signed a document dissenting from Humanae Vitae, and that was less than 50 years ago.

Not that this situation is exactly the same as that one. Back then, it was a group who understood exactly what the pope meant and disagreed. Here, it seems a group is wanting the pope to clarify what he means. I can empathize with that. I like clarity, too. I can’t say I agree with how they are going about seeking it, though.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
I don’t think that many people are confused about it.
Click to expand...
Many people have always been confused about whether some situations of invalid remarried Catholics could receive Communion while having conjugal relationships with someone other than their spouse.

Why did Popes JPII and Benedict VII feel the need to specifically reject such a pastoral proposal???
 
The answer is still no, unless there is a very unique situation that prevents the normal process from being able to transpire.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
The answer is still no, unless there is a very unique situation that prevents the normal process from being able to transpire.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that there could be a unique situation where an in validly married couple would have no choice but to have sex???
 
This is not the conclusion of the Malta Bishops, who said that it is up to the Communicant and that the Priest can not deny them Communion.
 
Last edited:
NewEnglandPriest said:
I don’t think that many people are confused about it.
Click to expand...
If you asked most Catholics, they would not be familiar with AL, even if you only asked those who are in a difficult marriage or divorce situation. Some of the reweds probably go to Holy Communion now because they never thought there was any reason not to - it’s not like they ever heard of Familiaris Consortio, either.

Another group of those invalidly remarried probably has been going to Communion for years; they know it is, in some way, not officially allowed, but they feel they have a right. This is the entitlement generation.

A third group, probably the largest, does not go to Church at all. Few, if any of them, will be affected by any change in rules on Communion. They are not saying, I won’t get up Sunday morning and go to that church until the rules on Communion change. They have and will still have other things to do on Sundays.

Theoretically there is this 4th group I keep reading about. Supposedly there are those who are going to confession on a regular basis, practicing Catholic Faith, but they feel they are excluded from Holy Communion. They pray quietly in the back of church, don’t go to Communion now, but pray for the day when their own bishops conference passes the resolution that would permit them to do so. Liberal writers constantly find lots of these people, but I can’t find any of them.

Conservatives also seem to find lots of these people. Apparently they had been refraining from sex because of their reading of Familiaris Consortio. But now, having read and been misled by reading Amoris Laeticia, they engage in sex with their current faux spouse, even though their real spouse is still living. If Pope Francis would only issue an encyclical reaffirming traditional teaching, then, having read this encyclical, they would cease sex with their partner; or at least stop enjoying it.

Does anyone actually know any people like this?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
40.png
NewEnglandPriest:
I don’t think that many people are confused about it.
Click to expand...
If you asked most Catholics, they would not be familiar with AL, even if you only asked those who are in a difficult marriage or divorce situation. Some of the reweds probably go to Holy Communion now because they never thought there was any reason not to - it’s not like they ever heard of Familiaris Consortio, either.

Another group of those invalidly remarried probably has been going to Communion for years; they know it is, in some way, not officially allowed, but they feel they have a right. This is the entitlement generation.

A third group, probably the largest, does not go to Church at all. Few, if any of them, will be affected by any change in rules on Communion. They are not saying, I won’t get up Sunday morning and go to that church until the rules on Communion change. They have and will still have other things to do on Sundays.

Theoretically there is this 4th group I keep reading about. Supposedly there are those who are going to confession on a regular basis, practicing Catholic Faith, but they feel they are excluded from Holy Communion. They pray quietly in the back of church, don’t go to Communion now, but pray for the day when their own bishops conference passes the resolution that would permit them to do so. Liberal writers constantly find lots of these people, but I can’t find any of them.

Conservatives also seem to find lots of these people. Apparently they had been refraining from sex because of their reading of Familiaris Consortio. But now, having read and been misled by reading Amoris Laeticia, they engage in sex with their current faux spouse, even though their real spouse is still living. If Pope Francis would only issue an encyclical reaffirming traditional teaching, then, having read this encyclical, they would cease sex with their partner; or at least stop enjoying it.

Does anyone actually know any people like this?
Click to expand...
In every situation, all clergy should promote and uphold magisterial Teaching, and Pope Francis should desire for clergy to know and understand how Jesus wants Christians to live and receive Communion in a worthy manner.
 
Yes, that is the correct document. I’m sorry I didn’t cite it. The number discrepancy appears to be because in the text I quoted it included the footnote citations.
 
That is what AL seems to suggest. There’s a footnote where Pope Francis, quoting JPII, seems to indicate that there might be situations in which lack of intimacy within a second marriage (even an invalid one) might harm the children of that union, and so may not always be a sinless option. Herein lies the crux of the matter. Is it impossible to do God’s will? And I think it’s a slippery slope nonetheless. If those in irregular marriages can properly discern that they must continue illicit sexual relations for the good of their children, why can this not also be the case for those validly married couples who, for example, have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, cannot or are unable to practice NFP, but still need to maintain intimacy? It becomes impossible to say that these couples may be called to complete abstinence.
 
There are a lot of people talking about this, but I wonder how many of them have actually been in the situation.
I have, and I can tell you, from my experience, if the priest who helped me come back to the Church behaved like some of you here, I would not be a practicing Catholic today,

I was in an irregular marriage, BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH.
My husband & I were denied our rights, as Catholics, by a priest who thought HIS rules were more important than the Church’s rules. At the time I was told it was the “Pastor’s prerogative”. What I have learned since was that what he did was not only against Canon Law but was also not a policy in my diocese. It was this treatment that caused me (and my husband) to leave the Church.

I was away for nearly 20 years but always had that longing to come back. I finally met a priest who listened to my story and started to help me understand what Church teaching was & why. At no time did he ever say to me, “get your house in order” then come see me about the Sacraments. He encouraged me to learn and to be fed with the Sacraments of Reconciliation & Eucharist. He guided me into a much deeper understanding of both Sacraments, and the Sacrament of Marriage. He helped me when I decided to regularize my marriage.

Had this priest not had compassion and a willingness to guide me to the truth, without bashing me over the head with it, I would have never come back.

I am starting to wonder if this is the problem- that too many people want the Church to be filled with perfect people instead of sinners. 😞
 
nodito said:
That is what AL seems to suggest. There’s a footnote where Pope Francis, quoting JPII, seems to indicate that there might be situations in which lack of intimacy within a second marriage (even an invalid one) might harm the children of that union, and so may not always be a sinless option. Herein lies the crux of the matter. Is it impossible to do God’s will? And I think it’s a slippery slope nonetheless. If those in irregular marriages can properly discern that they must continue illicit sexual relations for the good of their children, why can this not also be the case for those validly married couples who, for example, have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, cannot or are unable to practice NFP, but still need to maintain intimacy? It becomes impossible to say that these couples may be called to complete abstinence.
Click to expand...
Right. I also believe that (especially if a Tribunal has no reason to offer a decree of nulity from the first marriage), the second and invalid union was not entered into by faith, and that has consequences.

People cannot expect a spiritually reckless life to not have consequences.

And the notion that it’s healthier for a person to remain sexually active with anyone who is not free to be their spouse, is compromising the Christian faith.
 
Last edited:
No, it was not “THE CHURCH” that was responsible for whatever your pastor may have done wrong, it was one priest. And the decision to leave the Barque of Peter was yours. Not the fault of the Church.
 
Easy to say when you were not the one being treated unfairly and unjustly by the priest of the only parish you had ever known and you are a young 20-something.

I just pray that you never have to deal with an irrational, unreasonable cleric who doesn’t care about the law or the rights of his parishioners.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
There are a lot of people talking about this, but I wonder how many of them have actually been in the situation.
I have, and I can tell you, from my experience, if the priest who helped me come back to the Church behaved like some of you here, I would not be a practicing Catholic today,

I was in an irregular marriage, BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH.
My husband & I were denied our rights, as Catholics, by a priest who thought HIS rules were more important than the Church’s rules. At the time I was told it was the “Pastor’s prerogative”. What I have learned since was that what he did was not only against Canon Law but was also not a policy in my diocese. It was this treatment that caused me (and my husband) to leave the Church.

I was away for nearly 20 years but always had that longing to come back. I finally met a priest who listened to my story and started to help me understand what Church teaching was & why. At no time did he ever say to me, “get your house in order” then come see me about the Sacraments. He encouraged me to learn and to be fed with the Sacraments of Reconciliation & Eucharist. He guided me into a much deeper understanding of both Sacraments, and the Sacrament of Marriage. He helped me when I decided to regularize my marriage.

Had this priest not had compassion and a willingness to guide me to the truth, without bashing me over the head with it, I would have never come back.

I am starting to wonder if this is the problem- that too many people want the Church to be filled with perfect people instead of sinners. 😞
Click to expand...
If your marriage was able to be “regularized” (whatever that means) then for one, you are NOT who this matter is about. It’s about couples who are unable to convalidate (or regularise) their marriage.

Second, the first pastor was correct to advise you to refrain from Communion, but should have guided you towards a Tribunal for a decree of nulity OR convalidate your marriage himself.
 
This was a “pastoral issue”, one that AL is most certainly talking about.
There are so many ways that a marriage could be irregular, and there are many factors that go into regularizing the marriage. Annulments and convalidations are but 2 of the avenues- there is also Radical Sanation.

I never believed that I was “sinning”. I was married. My husband & I had no other marriages, and we were both Catholic. It was the priest who refused to marry us because of his rule (not Canon law or a policy of the diocese) and it was for that reason that I was granted a Radical Sanation.

Things are not always as “black & white” as we all wish they were. That is why, IMHO, Francis wrote AL.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I was away for nearly 20 years but always had that longing to come back. I finally met a priest who listened to my story and started to help me understand what Church teaching was & why. At no time did he ever say to me, “get your house in order” then come see me about the Sacraments. He encouraged me to learn and to be fed with the Sacraments of Reconciliation & Eucharist. He guided me into a much deeper understanding of both Sacraments, and the Sacrament of Marriage. He helped me when I decided to regularize my marriage.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a lot to be said about this. First, I hope someone apologized to you on behalf of the Church for your pastor’s failings. If not, let it be me. I am so sorry that you endured suffering because of a representative of the church and that you felt you had to leave the Church because of it. I’m glad you found someone who seems to have been pastoral and welcoming when you were ready to return.

I think there is a lot of potential between the two extremes you seem to be describing: Welcoming communion for all versus hardhearted truth-bashing. Ideally, a pastor should be able to listen to the hurts and angers and worries of his parishioners to meet them where they are and, for those in irregular or invalid marriages, work with them to bring them back to the Church. I think this does not mean encouraging them to receive Communion without first correcting the situation that objectively contravenes God’s law and plan for marriage. But I hope that when the truth is delivered to someone like you who was hurting, it is expressed in love and charity and hopefulness so as not to further alienate those who already feel marginalized. God bless.

PS, I’m very curious to know what your original pastor said when you approached him for marriage in your 20s, if you feel comfortable sharing.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
This was a “pastoral issue”, one that AL is most certainly talking about.
There are so many ways that a marriage could be irregular, and there are many factors that go into regularizing the marriage. Annulments and convalidations are but 2 of the avenues- there is also Radical Sanation.

I never believed that I was “sinning”. I was married. My husband & I had no other marriages, and we were both Catholic. It was the priest who refused to marry us because of his rule (not Canon law or a policy of the diocese) and it was for that reason that I was granted a Radical Sanation.

Things are not always as “black & white” as we all wish they were. That is why, IMHO, Francis wrote AL.
Click to expand...
Do you mind me asking why that priest refused to marry you???

If that is the case, then Pope Francis only needs to state that he wants to encourage clergy to pursue whether these situation CAN be regularized/convalidated.

But I don’t think it is. The issue is about those couples who are unable to receive a decree of nulity for a previous marriage, or for some other reason are unable to validly marry the person they are sleeping with.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
This was a “pastoral issue”, one that AL is most certainly talking about.
There are so many ways that a marriage could be irregular, and there are many factors that go into regularizing the marriage. Annulments and convalidations are but 2 of the avenues- there is also Radical Sanation.

I never believed that I was “sinning”. I was married. My husband & I had no other marriages, and we were both Catholic. It was the priest who refused to marry us because of his rule (not Canon law or a policy of the diocese) and it was for that reason that I was granted a Radical Sanation.

Things are not always as “black & white” as we all wish they were. That is why, IMHO, Francis wrote AL.
Click to expand...
My niece was in a situation where she wanted her parish priest to marry her on her terms. When he refused she was unhappy and married outside the Church.
The problem seems to me to be one of pride and an unwillingness to submit to those in authority.
I have no idea what your situation was, but in my niece’s situation she is now in an irregular marriage because she chose that, not because of the Church.
I’m very glad you have come back to the Church and have had your marriage blessed. I pray that my niece will someday return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top