Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[carn]

Everyone who was married in the Church or who had their civil marriage sanitized, and is now divorced and remarried, without an annulment, is not living in mortal sin. It doesn’t take a trained theologian to figure out how a situation such as that is possible. It would require “bedside manner” from a pastor to bring them around to a point where they would not feel ostracized from their community. Why would a pastor tell someone, who is in that kind of a situation, that they must take all of their “medicine” at once. It takes time to bring people around, as is evident from this forum.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the same folks who don’t understand AL cannot fathom that a divorced and remarried person may not understand the vows of their first marriage.

Cause when approaching the pastor to resolve the question about receiving communion, the pastor will tell them that as they are not validly married, sex between them would be adultery, as pastors usually inform people about any sin so they have a chance to avoid it?

Or is the intent that the divorced and remarried person is left in the dark by the pastor, so that they continue to not understand the vows for their first marriage and can continue to have sex without culpability?

If no one would know what is sinful, no one would have culpability.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am not claiming that anybody is encouraging people to live in sin.

It is not clear to me whether there is now an allowance for people to receive Communion who are divorced and remarried, who cannot get an annulment, and who are not living as brother and sister, and have no intention to change their sexual relationship.

I think that it is clear. I think that the church cannot change that idea without changing the Eucharist, or marriage. Either one would prove the church false in my eyes. That is why these questions will not be answered.

I am deeply saddened that in this world and this time of marital confusion on even the substance of male and female, and in this time of need for the family, that the very synod that was supposed to help us, has confused us.

Lost in all of this arguing about a faithful Catholic who needs to have theveucharist while living in adultery is the damage done to the rest of us who are just trying to live a holy family life in a world ( and a church) that does not even see us.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Cause when approaching the pastor to resolve the question about receiving communion, the pastor will tell them that as they are not validly married, sex between them would be adultery, as pastors usually inform people about any sin so they have a chance to avoid it?

Or is the intent that the divorced and remarried person is left in the dark by the pastor, so that they continue to not understand the vows for their first marriage and can continue to have sex without culpability?

If no one would know what is sinful, no one would have culpability.

I don’t think AL is complex, I understand it. Some people, despite much effort from others trying to help them, do not understand it. When such people talk to their parish priest about AL in order to understand it, but leave the meeting saying to their pastor, “I just don’t get it.” Should their parish priest deny them the Eucharist because they are being disobedient? Of course not.

A pastor cannot just inform someone they don’t know very well that what they are doing is so wrong that they cannot receive the Eucharist. That would be pretty bad pastoral care. A pastor does not have magical powers to make people **understand ** Church teaching. A person has to understand Church teaching and then reject it, not just be aware of it, in order for mortal sin to be present.

If a pastor knows someone well and knows their ongoing formation well, that’s a different story. A pastor may then decide to inform the unmarried person that they cannot give them the Eucharist anymore(I’ve only seen that scenario happen once). And the only reason it happened is because the pastor was sure that the unmarried person was ready and would not despair as a result of it; although they were shocked and angry at first.

 

[Jesus_123]

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
(Jesus teaching)

:bible1: Matthew 5:19
He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall DO and TEACH, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

:bible1: Matthew 19:17
Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, GOD. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

:bible1: Matthew 22:36-40
Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

:bible1: John 14:15
If you love me,** keep** my commandments.

:bible1: John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth** me**. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and **I **will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

. . . all for Jesus
+​

+Below is SAINT Pope John Paul II the Great’s clear and concise opinion on “irregular” marriages (marriages where previous marriages have not been annulled by the Holy Roman Catholic Church):
. . . :coffeeread: . . .

---

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EPISCOPATE
TO THE CLERGY AND TO THE FAITHFUL
OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE ROLE
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
IN THE MODERN WORLD

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred :bible1: Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.
They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

• Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

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."180 …

With firm confidence she believes that those who have REJECTED the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the **grace **of conversion and salvation, PROVIDED that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.​

+

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t think AL is complex, I understand it. Some people, despite much effort from others trying to help them, do not understand it. When such people talk to their parish priest about AL in order to understand it, but leave the meeting saying to their pastor, “I just don’t get it.” Should their parish priest deny them the Eucharist because they are being disobedient? Of course not.

A pastor, most likely, would not just inform someone they don’t know very well that what they are doing is so wrong that they cannot receive the Eucharist. That would be pretty bad pastoral care. A pastor does not have magical powers to make people **understand ** Church teaching. A person has to understand Church teaching and then reject it, not just be aware of it, in order for mortal sin to be present.

If a pastor knows someone well and knows their ongoing formation well, that’s a different story. A pastor may then decide to inform the unmarried person that they cannot give them the Eucharist anymore(I’ve only seen that scenario happen once). And the only reason it happened is because the pastor was sure that the unmarried person was ready and would not despair as a result of it; although they were shocked and angry at first.

 

[Brendan]

No argument. The question is whether it is instantaneous, or part of a spiritual growth process. I maintain not everyone is of equal strength. Some need more training than others. Ask any monk if conversatio morum is an instantaneous thing or the fruit of a long life of (sometimes very hard) training.

The Grace is always present.

This brings us full circle back to the question: is sacramental grace medicine and sustenance for the journey, or a prize for arriving at the destination?

It is not an ‘either\or’. A catechumen might be on a spiritual journey, but we do not offer them Sacramental Grace until they have achieved particular points in their journey.

Likewise with someone who has rejected the Church and it’s teachings, or simply fallen away in practice. The Sacramental Grace of Confession is the appropriate medicine.

And that door is always open to those who accept the Prevenient Grace that God has granted to them to intend to live in accord with the teachings of the Church. That Grace is given to everyone, without exception. Along with the Grace to live out that life, again without exception.

So it would follow that at least the INTENT to live a continent life, to accept that call to Holiness that is given to anyone would proceed the reception of Sacramental Grace, (or it’s restoration via Confession). The Grace of Holy Communion would be necessary to help them live out the intent of a continent life, but the acceptance of that, the recognition that they are living a sinful life and reject that sin, would need to proceed that.

That is how the Church addresses Baptism, for example. Prevenient Grace brings a person to the point where they can make their Baptismal promises. If they cannot, if for example, they cannot truthfully state that they reject Satan and all his works, then the Church withholds Baptism until such a point where the person CAN truthfully promise that.

They Church does not abandon the person, but continues the spiritual accompaniment, help them develop the faith given by grace until such a point that the Church CAN rightly offer Sacramental Grace.

Why would this model be inappropriate in the case of couples living more uxorio?

 

[TMC]

I am not claiming that anybody is encouraging people to live in sin.

It is not clear to me whether there is now an allowance for people to receive Communion who are divorced and remarried, who cannot get an annulment, and who are not living as brother and sister, and have no intention to change their sexual relationship.

I think that is in fact clear. It is also clear that the decision as to what occurs in such a situation is left to the individuals’ pastor, in consultation with the individuals themselves and, as deemed necessary or appropriate, with their bishop or other competent authority.

I think all of that is clear, and that some just don’t like it. Different bishops are implementing this in somewhat different ways, which is their prerogative, and which may be appropriate given the differences in circumstances across the breadth of the Church.

 

[carn]

A pastor cannot just inform someone they don’t know very well that what they are doing is so wrong that they cannot receive the Eucharist. That would be pretty bad pastoral care. A pastor does not have magical powers to make people **understand ** Church teaching. A person has to understand Church teaching and then reject it, not just be aware of it, in order for mortal sin to be present.

If a pastor knows someone well and knows their ongoing formation well, that’s a different story. A pastor may then decide to inform the unmarried person that they cannot give them the Eucharist anymore(I’ve only seen that scenario happen once). And the only reason it happened is because the pastor was sure that the unmarried person was ready and would not despair as a result of it; although they were shocked and angry at first.

If i understand you correctly, this would mean that the pastor would attempt in the long run to make them understand Church teaching so that the point is reached where they understand the teaching, abstain and continue to receive the sacraments? And if they reach that point of understanding but do not abstain the cannot continue to receive the sacraments?

And till that point, there might be long intermediate stages during which they receive sacraments although they do not abstain?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that is in fact clear. It is also clear that the decision as to what occurs in such a situation is left to the individuals’ pastor, in consultation with the individuals themselves and, as deemed necessary or appropriate, with their bishop or other competent authority.

I think all of that is clear, and that some just don’t like it. Different bishops are implementing this in somewhat different ways, which is their prerogative, and which may be appropriate given the differences in circumstances across the breadth of the Church.

It’s not clear to me and I don’t think I’m alone among lay Catholics in confusion. It appears not to be be clear to the four Cardinals in regards to the dubia either.

I don’t understand how it can be an acceptable situation for different clergy to perhaps have very different interpretations of passages in Amoris Lateia. I don’t understand how it would be acceptable for clergy to have different interpretations of passages in Humane Vitae in regards to contraception, for example.

In my understanding, it has been understood for a long time that the divorced and remarried who are not living as brother and sister and who have not got an annulment, are not in a position to receive Communion because they are seen to be in adultery and are not in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. If that has changed, the monumentus nature of that is too significant to perhaps put in words. So I hope there is clarity given because I think the Church needs a unified understanding of what we’re dealing with here.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It’s not clear to me and I don’t think I’m alone among lay Catholics in confusion. It appears not to be be clear to the four Cardinals in regards to the dubia either.

I don’t understand how it can be an acceptable situation for different clergy to perhaps have very different interpretations of passages in Amoris Lateia. I don’t understand how it would be acceptable for clergy to have different interpretations of passages in Humane Vitae in regards to contraception, for example.

In my understanding, it has been understood for a long time that the divorced and remarried who are not living as brother and sister and who have not got an annulment, are not in a position to receive Communion because they are seen to be in adultery and are not in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. If that has changed, the monumentus nature of that is too significant to perhaps put in words. So I hope there is clarity given because I think the Church needs a unified understanding of what we’re dealing with here.

This is what I don’t understand. If you are NOT in a situation like this, why do YOU need clarity?

This is a matter that is between the couple & their confessor/priest, and MAYBE their Bishop.

There has been no change to the actual teaching. AL is a document that is meant to help with pastoral care that is 200+ pages and people are getting hung up on a footnote. I don’t get it.

I am a revert, Baptized as an infant, then away for the Church until 6th grade. I was catechised for a total of 3 years in the early 80’s and received First Communion & Confirmation. Then left the Church again as a young adult. When I decided to return, some 15 years later, I was in an irregular situation. If my priest(s) had taken such a “hard line” stance as some of you seem to suggest, I NEVER would have made it back home to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but to think that is what many of you here want and it makes me very sad.

 

[kyrie03]

Indeed you are correct that being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right. What makes one right is the conformity of what they expound to what the Church articulates, in this case concerning papal authority…it is a subcategory in ecclesiology

I think we are all attempting to conform to what the Church articulates. But is Pope Francis using his authority to change the traditional understanding of Communion for D/R without annulment and not intending to live in contienence in contradiction to what was explicitly taught by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio?

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EPISCOPATE
TO THE CLERGY AND TO THE FAITHFUL
OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE ROLE
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
IN THE MODERN WORLD
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.
• They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.
• Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
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."180 …

With firm confidence she believes that those who have REJECTED the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, PROVIDED that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

 

[JimG]

What would be the mindset of a couple in a second marriage with no decree of nullity of the first, if they decide that it is okay to receive communion?

A. My first marriage was invalid, therefore my second marriage is valid.

B. My first marriage was valid, therefore my second marriage is not valid, but it doesn’t matter because I am not responsible due to mitigating factors.

I have mentioned before the situation of an aunt who for decades refrained from communion because she was in a second marriage, and the tribunal did not grant a decree of nullity to the first.

She did not wish to discuss it much, but from what I understood, if it were up to me and the ‘internal forum,’ which it wasn’t, I viewed her first marriage as likely not valid. I even suggested she might appeal the tribunal’s decision even years after the fact.

She would not hear of such a thing. She accepted the tribunal’s decision. She also accepted her second husband and would not deny him marital relations. She remained an active and well known member of her parish, on good terms with her pastor, attending Mass every Sunday without fail, just not receiving communion. When her husband became impotent due to age and illness, she went to confession and resumed going to communion. She would have wondered what all the fuss is about now.

 

[TMC]

It’s not clear to me and I don’t think I’m alone among lay Catholics in confusion. It appears not to be be clear to the four Cardinals in regards to the dubia either.

I don’t understand how it can be an acceptable situation for different clergy to perhaps have very different interpretations of passages in Amoris Lateia. I don’t understand how it would be acceptable for clergy to have different interpretations of passages in Humane Vitae in regards to contraception, for example.

In my understanding, it has been understood for a long time that the divorced and remarried who are not living as brother and sister and who have not got an annulment, are not in a position to receive Communion because they are seen to be in adultery and are not in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. If that has changed, the monumentus nature of that is too significant to perhaps put in words. So I hope there is clarity given because I think the Church needs a unified understanding of what we’re dealing with here.

I think the direction is pretty clear, and I also believe that the clarity of the direction is the reason for the dubia, and precisely why the four Cardinals are acting as they are.

I never said that its OK for different clergy to interpret doctrine differently. I do think it is OK for doctrine to be applied in ways that are tailored to different situations. One of the main thrusts of the Pope’s teaching is that we need to shed the notion that all the world is black or white, and that all situations can be handled with a simple checklist approach. Life is complicated and the Church is supposed to meet people in the real world were they are. AL provides the flexibility to do exactly that. That is the “unified understanding” that is required, and which Pope Francis is trying to impart.

 

[kyrie03]

I cannot, for all that, think of one who would have a different conclusion than I gave…although they might indeed formulate it very differently. But with no change in the substance. Because the aspects of the power of the Petrine Office is basic in the extreme from the perspective of theology. Pastor aeternus is straightforward.

Paster aeternus is indeed straightforward about the Petrine office. We are required to believe ALL the truths revealed by God and taught through the Church. Doctrine of indissolubility of marriage, necessity of repentance for re-admittance to life of grace, and necessity of receiving Body and Blood while in state of grace have been obligations of belief as clearly taught by prior authority. There cannot be a contradiction between obeying the pope and obeying the clear teachings of the Church. Paster aeternus tells us that the very purpose of the authority of the papacy is to preserve the Church from error so that the gates of hell cannot prevail against Her.

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
2. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”[60]
3. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

The dubia that some seem to perceive as disrespectful toward the authority of the Pope is only attempting to be faithful to the Truth revealed and practiced since Apostolic times.

 

[Brendan]

This is what I don’t understand. If you are NOT in a situation like this, why do YOU need clarity?

Because the laity have a very strong role in evangelization. Friends, family and other parishioners are often the first contact those who seek to redress their marriages will encounter. The laity are a core component of spiritual accompaniment.

It is thus very important that the laity have a clear understanding of what the Church teaches on this, and ever other subject that might impact friends, family and those in our community.

 

[commenter]

This is what I don’t understand. If you are NOT in a situation like this, why do YOU need clarity?

This is a matter that is between the couple & their confessor/priest, and MAYBE their Bishop.

There has been no change to the actual teaching. AL is a document that is meant to help with pastoral care that is 200+ pages and people are getting hung up on a footnote. I don’t get it.

I am a revert, Baptized as an infant, then away for the Church until 6th grade. I was catechised for a total of 3 years in the early 80’s and received First Communion & Confirmation. Then left the Church again as a young adult. When I decided to return, some 15 years later, I was in an irregular situation. If my priest(s) had taken such a “hard line” stance as some of you seem to suggest, I NEVER would have made it back home to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but to think that is what many of you here want and it makes me very sad.

****I’m ****glad you came back! And I’m glad you post on CAF.
You probably do other interesting things, too.

 

[carn]

This is what I don’t understand. If you are NOT in a situation like this, why do YOU need clarity?

This is a matter that is between the couple & their confessor/priest, and MAYBE their Bishop.

There has been no change to the actual teaching. AL is a document that is meant to help with pastoral care that is 200+ pages and people are getting hung up on a footnote. I don’t get it.

I am a revert, Baptized as an infant, then away for the Church until 6th grade. I was catechised for a total of 3 years in the early 80’s and received First Communion & Confirmation. Then left the Church again as a young adult. When I decided to return, some 15 years later, I was in an irregular situation. If my priest(s) had taken such a “hard line” stance as some of you seem to suggest, I NEVER would have made it back home to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but to think that is what many of you here want and it makes me very sad.

Please do not think that.

Its more a matter that some people see a potential contradiction between AL and other teaching/documents. Adn whenever there is a contradiction, something is amiss and the urge is there to resolve it one way or another.

And this is probably also the intent of the 4 cardinals; they maybe hoped with answers to the dubia the potential contradiction would be resolved.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Because the laity have a very strong role in evangelization. Friends, family and other parishioners are often the first contact those who seek to redress their marriages will encounter. The laity are a core component of spiritual accompaniment.

It is thus very important that the laity have a clear understanding of what the Church teaches on this, and ever other subject that might impact friends, family and those in our community.

Church teaching has not changed. My advice to anyone who asked me would be-
“Church teaching has not changed. Please see you priest/Pastor and they will help you to understand why and help you to rectify your situation.” Period. End of discussion.

Why the need for clarity? What, exactly, is not clear?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If i understand you correctly, this would mean that the pastor would attempt in the long run to make them understand Church teaching so that the point is reached where they understand the teaching, abstain and continue to receive the sacraments? And if they reach that point of understanding but do not abstain the cannot continue to receive the sacraments?

This ^ is something people already do.

And till that point, there might be long intermediate stages during which they receive sacraments although they do not abstain?

This ^ is too. As a previous poster mentioned, and I can confirm from personal experience; A pastor will work with couples in a ‘do no harm to the couple’ fashion. That does not include accusing them of mortal sin and denying them the Eucharist.

 

[kyrie03]

I think the direction is pretty clear, and I also believe that the clarity of the direction is the reason for the dubia, and precisely why the four Cardinals are acting as they are.

I never said that its OK for different clergy to interpret doctrine differently. I do think it is OK for doctrine to be applied in ways that are tailored to different situations. One of the main thrusts of the Pope’s teaching is that we need to shed the notion that all the world is black or white, and that all situations can be handled with a simple checklist approach. Life is complicated and the Church is supposed to meet people in the real world were they are. AL provides the flexibility to do exactly that. That is the “unified understanding” that is required, and which Pope Francis is trying to impart.

The way one acts should be in conformity to what they believe. Doctrine didn’t used to be gray or divorced from practice. Our approach to implementing doctrine in our lives is often gray…and that’s what used to be known as “sin.”