"Filial correction"

[Ghosty1981]

I know the principle is old, yet I also know that St. John Paul, who always chose his words carefully, referred to it as a practice.

And it is a very practical practice. Practically the most practical practice possible.

But saying there might be rare exceptions does not invalidate a practice or principle. Probably.

And with this comment you have done more to clear the air than Pope Francis, and therein lies my concern. If it is a discipline, a practice that is rooted in doctrine but is not itself doctrine, then we have a simple way forward. A fuller explanation is still warranted, as the previous judgements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deserve an answer in light of this development, but this is as least the beginning of an explanation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

Have you reflected on why the situation of the above abstaining couple is:
(i) a very unusual exception to the expectation they completely disengage
(ii only a very good reason allows this exception (for the sake of the children)
(iii) they may not receive public Communion.
(iv) the situation is tolerated as a necessary exception but remain objectively disordered just as you quoted.

Clearly they are a still an ongoing counter-witness to Jesus’s teaching on the indissiolubility of marriage and faithfulness to the original marriage. Marriage and Biblical adultery is about more than sex.

 

[Ghosty1981]

These are the obvious criteria that can easily be gleaned from Magisterial comment from AL to FC and Canon Law re even the possibility of Communion for those in 2nd marriages.

Then cite them, even if they are only implied. I’m willing to follow your argument, but “go read it until you see what I see” is hardly helpful in such discussions. I’m not aware of any Magisterial comments or Canon Laws that lay out, or even indicate, criteria like you are proposing. I have read AL and FC and I don’t see them, I have read Canon Law and I don’t see them, and I have read the relevant Magisterial comments and rulings that I’m familiar with but I obviously don’t know all the possible documents I could examine.

I want to emphasize that my only interest in such criteria is that I understand you to be saying that these criteria are implicitly found in AL, while I understand AL to be a more general guideline that intentionally avoids setting criteria. To my knowledge there was only one limiting criterion previously, that put forth in Familiaris Consortio, but that criterion is no longer in force according to some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia. I want to make sure we’re on the same page when it comes to implicit teachings in Amoris Laetitia, otherwise we have no common ground with which to discuss how the various guidelines properly follow them.

 

[rcwitness]

BlackFriar:

Can you quote a Magisterial or CDF document that agrees with you on this?

In fact you will find the opposite methinks.

Clearly you are mistaken by the boldened section where you attempt to speak of irregulars.

We are clearly speaking of those civilly remarried with common children not best friends who happen to have separate rooms in the same house and don’t share their lives.

At the moment I can only cite Familiaris Consortio, which states:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

Sharing a home, raising children, and sharing lives do not constitute a way of life that contradicts the indissolubility of marriage. If you know of documents that indicate something different I am happy to read them.

I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that you and I see eye to eye! I’m also waiting to see specific mentioning that even these rare situations would be permitted Communion while continuing in sexual relations with an invalid spouse!

There is way too much reading between the lines! Pope Francis is being asked to either affirm (as pastor of the Church) that some situations (however rare they may be) of couples in irregular marriages are possible to continue with sexual relations, or if they in fact do need to refrain from sexual relations to receive Communion in a worthy manner.

It’s very simple, and there is no need to complicate things with supposed criteria and difficult situations.

 

[pnewton]

Okay, here is why I think it is at least theoretically and logically possible. Just because a practice is based on Scripture does not mean it is the only possible practice based on Scripture. Baptism by immersion is based on Scripture. Yet it is not the only possible practice based on Scripture.

The question remains as well as to whether the objective state is the ultimate unchangeable position. Grace is ultimately not about the objective state after all, as one can be in an objective state of grace but totally ill-disposed to receive. Again, I don’t know. I only know I have not seen anything that definitively answers this question.

Even if all this is possible, there will still remain the question of prudence. We don’t need to switch to any practice which causes more harm than good, even it is possible, but in such a matter, the Pope would have the final say.

 

[BlackFriar]

To suggest the above relationship is really no different from that of a bachelor man and his sister is not credible to most people.

One does not need to be having sex with another to be unfaithful to one’s wife:
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Where is sex mentioned as the exclusive defining feature of Jesus’s hostility to this practice?
It is the abandoning and the unfaithfulness to the first wife that constitutes the injustice.

Sex obviously makes matters more grave, but it is already grave enough even if not consummated.
One is still “publicly unworthy”.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

If you are unable to see that a man cohabiting with a woman other than his first wife and in possession of a current civil marriage licence to her is not, “by this state and condition”, publicly unfaithful to his true wife and Jesus’s teaching on faithfulness and the Sacrament of their unity…then there is nothing more that can be said.

 

[rcwitness]

To suggest the above relationship is really no different from that of a bachelor man and his sister is not credible to most people.

One does not need to be having sex with another to be unfaithful to one’s wife:
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Where is sex mentioned as the exclusive defining feature of Jesus’s hostility to this practice?
It is the abandoning and the unfaithfulness to the first wife that constitutes the injustice.

Sex obviously makes matters more grave, but it is grave enough even if not consummated.

If you are unable to see that a man cohabiting with a woman other than his first wife and in possession of a current civil marriage licence to her is not, “by this state and condition”, publicly unfaithful to his true wife and Jesus’s teaching on faithfulness and the Sacrament of their unity…then there is nothing more that can be said.

Now you are contrasting the only means given by the Church to Receive Communion (abstain from sexual relations) with a situation that is beyond control for reasons you’ve already offered as “criteria”.

The “other spouse” for those living in an adulterous relationship may have abandoned them, so reconciliation in that regard is out of their control. And, as you also indicated as ligitimate, there is the welfare of the children that have material needs.

But sexual intercourse is the act of conjugal love that belongs only to a valid husband and wife. So it is the minimum requirement to be honored so that reception of Communion is possible.

 

[BlackFriar]

Perhaps others can explain your response as I am unable to.

The fact remains that publicly living as husband and wife in a second marriage is grave matter consummated or not. It does not matter what the situation or attitude of the first partner is unless they are deceased. These are objective matters beyond personal will until the 2nd marriage is revoked by civil divorce and separation. Just like the “state of grave sin” of innocent babies. Once you are in it you are in it regardless of what you do until you choose to leave it.

It clearly contradicts Jesus’s teaching. What further Magisterial docs do you need to demonstrate this objective gravity?

Did you carefully read the link I gave you before replying?
You will note three criteria are provided to explain how Canon 915 prohibits Communion to the remarried.
All three must be satisfied for Communion to be withheld:
(i) grave matter
(ii) obstinate persistence
(iii) manifest character of habitual offences re (I) above.

The only reason that Communion is privately allowed to abstaining couples is not because (a) fails but because the second half of (iii) fails:

Those faithful [abstaining remarried] would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin… Given that the fact that these faithful are not living as husband/wife is hidden (while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is public) they will be able to receive Communion only remoto scandalo [privately].

Therefore it is clear that even abstainers are still in a state of grave objective sin (their condition and state of life contradicts Jesus’s teaching on indissolubility of marriage etc).

Therefore their case is an exception…it is still objectively disordered but is tolerated by the principle of double effect (ie there is sought a greater good that counters this grave evil) just like lethal self-defence, ectopic “abortions” and appropriation of another’s property against their will in time of famine.

So even remarried abstainers who receive Communion are still “publicly unworthy” for this objective reason even if they do not sin and even though they are privately worthy.

 

[rcwitness]

I did read the Vatican link. It was after you added it.

I agree with most of your reasoning. But where we disagree, is that sexual intercourse cannot be tolerated in these cases. You think it’s possible (according to what you take from Church Teaching) and I think it is not possible (from what I take from Church Teaching).

Everything I’ve read of Church documents, offers possible cohabitation on account of the welfare of children, yet NEVER a continued sexual relationship. Yes, I agree that “room and board” should be confined to husband and wife, but not absolutely in all situations. Sexual intercourse is different. It must be absolutely confined to valid husband and wife.

 

[oppositeman13]

what do you think of this? I follow a theologian on facebook and he just posted an article - here is a little part of it

In summary, if Pope Francis were to answer the first question as “yes,” then it follows that Familiaris Consortio, 84—and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34—and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29, is in error and, therefore AL, would be the real truth. Furthermore, FC would then not have been a definitive and authentic act of the magisterium of the previous Pope, St. John Paul, who taught precisely the opposite. Living in an invalid marriage, one need not make a voluntary commitment, not merely a simple velleity or wish, to live as brother and sister (continence) before one can be absolved of sin, and receive holy communion. If this teaching was erroneous in practice, why? Impossible to practice?

 

[rcwitness]

I think I agree with that part. I tried to acknowledge that. It seems that a compromise is definitely offered because the situation is beyond a healthy Reconciliation.

But sexual intercourse has specifically NOT been condoned by St. JPII and The Congregation for Doctrine (or whatever it’s called).

 

[Rau]

Pope Francis is being asked to either affirm (as pastor of the Church) that some situations (however rare they may be) of couples in irregular marriages are possible to continue with sexual relations, or if they in fact do need to refrain from sexual relations to receive Communion in a worthy manner.

Why would this need confirmation? He has fairly clearly said some circumstances might not require a commitment to abstain.

Explanations would be useful to explain how this judgement is arrived at given the moral theology principles at hand (the Dubia addresses this issue).

 

[BlackFriar]

I did read the Vatican link. It was after you added it.

I agree with most of your reasoning.

I did read the Vatican link. It was after you added it…

You are sliding away somewhat from the current point in contention which is:

The condition placed on reception of the Eucharist was that both formal and material sin be removed; living with someone that is not your spouse is neither grave matter nor formal sin, and sexual relations were to be given up.

I believe the objective public grave sin (material sin, grave matter) still remains even in the condition of abstainers. The gravity is not incompatible with Communion under certain conditions, but it still remains and results in “public unworthiness”.

Which is why even abstainers are “unworthy” to receive Communion in public.

But where we disagree, is that sexual intercourse cannot be tolerated in these cases.

Yet it already is, albeit under a frequent lapse/contrition/Confession regime.

These are unheard of breaks with tradition by JPII.
Clearly the ancient Communion practises must be prudential/disciplinary/man-made-juridic in some way if he can get away with that. Communion denial isn’t a straight forward application of any single doctrine. Different doctrines come into play and some clearly contradict others.

Therefore Pope Francis’s changes cannot be ruled out simply on the grounds of previous “Tradition” or a single monolithic Communion “Teaching”. They do not exist. If they did JPII would be in error.

 

[Rau]

Sexual intercourse is different. It must be absolutely confined to valid husband and wife.

This is not really disputed I think, meaning all transgression of this kind are agreed to be wrong. But how wrong? The question is whether the objective sinfulness here is always a blocker for communion - ought it always impede a person from presenting? Can the sins be venial?

 

[BlackFriar]

Can you link to the full text?
Its hard to grasp with the first bit missing.

 

[BlackFriar]

The below link (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html) suggests a path.

This brief document asserts that abstainers re Canon 915:
(i) are still juridically “publicly unworthy” due to their ongoing state/condition.
This is why they may not receive publicly.
(ii) The reason that abstention allows private access to Communion is because they:

…would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin.

That is interesting. Because they can now access Confession then they may well be failing every month, confessing and continuing to receive Communion.

How does that not objectively constitute “serious habitual sin?”
If that habitual sexual activity can be understood not to be “habitual sin” simply by means of an inability to fully effect an ongoing intent to abstain from marital acts…why cannot the same be said of a remarried Catholic wife who feels her non-Catholic first-time-married Protestant husband did not marry her to be a monk and she has no right to deny him what she promised in the past and which condition she continues to perpetuate with Church toleration (a 2nd marriage for the sake of the kids).
If she cooperates with her husband when required, can she still not have a private personal intention to abstain even if she is unable to objectively instantiate it for any great length of time due to her husband’s reasonable needs…and who would find abstention unreasonable in a marriage that he and his wife clearly signed up for at the time.

Should she be denied Confession access simply because she cannot effect that abstaining intent?
Yes its also habitual sin just like the above abstainers.
But can she not also be ongoing contrite at the same time and credibly so…or at least as credibly as the above regularly failing “abstainers”?

Cardinal Burke may have the answer himself as per 2007: (Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin)

Regarding Holy Communion, the Synod of 1736 legislated that the “publicly unworthy” are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
The legislation gives as examples of those to be denied Holy Communion the following: heretics,
schismatics, apostates, the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the openly notorious, such as prostitutes, the cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of this public kind.

The legislation gives two conditions under which they may subsequently be admitted to receive Holy
Communion:

1. the establishment of their penance and change of life;
2. the prior repair of public scandal.

Well, abstainers, even regularly failing ones, might borderline pass on (1).
However it is hard to see how they have passed on (2) given they are not required by JPII to divorce and separate as an absolute.

So I do not see why Card Burke is offended by AL but not by FC.
Perhaps he secretly is?

 

[Pug]

Should she be denied Confession access simply because she cannot effect that abstaining intent?

What you describe overall seems like she would like to abstain if nobody asks her to do anything, but she plans to say yes the next time he asks. Such a plan seems to include a positive will to do the action. But if she plans to say no the next time he asks, but she ends up giving in anyway, that is different.

But regardless, if the sin is venial, she doesn’t need confession.

 

[pnewton]

I believe the objective public grave sin (material sin, grave matter) still remains even in the condition of abstainers. The gravity is not incompatible with Communion under certain conditions, but it still remains and results in “public unworthiness”.

Which is why even abstainers are “unworthy” to receive Communion in public.

I find it rather ironic that those with annulments, which are kept private, can still receive in public.

But hey, I am in the unworthy to receive communion as well. In fact, I say it at every Mass, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof…”

 

[BlackFriar]

But regardless, if the sin is venial, she doesn’t need confession.

I believe its more complicated than this.

If someone in a 2nd marriage, who has an exemption from the PP to continue in that unworthy state (only for the sake of the kids) so long as she abstains, fails in that objective commitment…then the Priest is barred by Canon 915 from giving her Communion.
Its the objective/juridic grave sin that bars her and personal culpability is irrelevant to this Canon.

Nor may anyone present for Communion who is conscious of “grave sin” (Canon 916).
That does not just mean “grave personal sin” as in mortal sin.

It could also mean simply failing in grave matter.
Adultery is clearly “grave matter” even if a venial sin.

Most single people, let alone married people, I would think would want to go to Confession if involved in adultery even if culpability was reduced.

You can be sure a PP worth his salt would consider failing in a commitment to abstain from adultery was a seriously sinful matter whether personally venial or mortal. All sin has an objective public component and Confession is not just for reconciling with God … it is also for reconciling juridically with the Church.

 

[oppositeman13]

I just did on another thread