Interview with Archbishop Paglia - Gamechanger?

[oppositeman13]

On Saturday an interview was published, the same day as the filial correction became public, with the Archbishop. The interview is lengthy and I haven’t read it but picked up on the story elsewhere and followed it back to the original source.

What I read said, and I believe I understand this properly, that somewhere in this interview the Archbishop said that Pope St. John Paul II laid the way for Church approval of Communion for the remarried.

This of course is extremely significant since the only way official teaching can be altered is that it has to be reasonably argued that it is an extension or clarification of previous official teaching. I think this is the first time this has been claimed.

the interview is here - https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2017/09/23/paglia-pope-not-backing-pro-life-cause-hes-doubling/

 

[1Lord1Faith]

“Remember that the institute created by John Paul II came out of a synod [on the family], and a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio. Now, there have been two other synods and another apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. In that sense, the direction that the new institute will take is strictly connected to Amoris, which becomes its Magna Carta.”

This part gave me a better understanding of the Institute’s mission.

Paglia: "What I think is that Pope Francis has interpreted, more deeply than others, the significance of Familiaris Consortio. I’m beyond convinced of that. I’ll tell you why: Pope Francis has carried forward, lifted up, certain intuitions present in Familiaris Consortio that weren’t really made explicit in a terribly high-profile way.

I can give you a clear example, which is the divorced and remarried. The real revolution there happened under John Paul II, not Francis, which hasn’t really yet been understood. You have to remember that before [Familiaris Consortio], it wasn’t that the divorced and remarried just couldn’t get Communion, it was they were practically excommunicated and expelled. They were outsiders. After John Paul, everybody was inside the house … I can’t just send them out on the terrace!

In that sense, I want to insist that the best interpreter of John Paul II is Pope Francis."

You are referring to this part. I think this is already known by most clergy. I think it was obvious to most clergy.

 

[oppositeman13]

Why do you think that the pope hasn’t pursued the official channel open to him to “adjust” catholic teaching? Doesn’t like the college of cardinals have to vote on it? It seems that if he does something official that would quiet the opposition - or is there nothing the pope can do in an official way?

 

[Vico]

…What I read said, and I believe I understand this properly, that somewhere in this interview the Archbishop said that Pope St. John Paul II laid the way for Church approval of Communion for the remarried.

Familaris Consortio, St. Pope John Paul II, #84:

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 convenant 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]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p..._jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

 

[Ghosty1981]

The article doesn’t really present any argument at all about Communing those in irregular marriages. All the Cardinal said is that St. John Paul II allowed the divorced and remarried, who had previously been practically excommunicated, a place in the Church. This is true, but it isn’t a justification of changes in the administration of the Sacraments to people in these situations, and no further argument is presented in the article.

Peace and God bless!

 

[oppositeman13]

not an argument but a path to make it official teaching claiming that it is, in so many words, an extension or clarification of what was taught earlier. It seems to me that this may be the beginning of trying to get official recognition of AL as church teaching - or am I making too much of this?

 

[Ghosty1981]

It isn’t even a path, though. Not treating people as pariahs is not on the same track the same as allowing them Communion, any more than open dialogue with Muslims means that they are on the path to receiving the Sacraments. All the Cardinal is saying is that the Church used to be more hostile towards these people, and now it is gentler, but the foundation for not allowing Communion to the divorced and remarried was never grounded in harshness, but on the public nature of marriage and the moral teaching tradition of the Church.

We can’t justify a radical change in a practice that has been upheld based on thorough moral reasoning and tradition without addressing moral reasoning and tradition. To say that we can move forward because a previous Pope was gentler than his predecessors is a non-starter because the issue isn’t mercy versus rigidity, but the moral doctrines of the Faith. It is not as if we don’t have nearly 20 years of authoritative interpretation of St. John Paul II’s writings, backed by moral reasoning and tradition.

A change may be possible, but “we’re going to be nicer now” is not the foundation for such change, and the weight of moral and theological arguments and tradition can’t be so easily tossed aside.

Peace and God bless!

 

[stpurl]

About 67 years ago a Catholic woman married a divorced Anglican man, outside the Church. She raised her children Catholic. The children attended Catholic schools. They attended regular Mass. They sang in the choirs (the girls) and served at the altar (the boy). There was never the slightest hint from their teachers, their peers’ parents, or their peers themselves that this family was any different from any other Catholic family. The woman never went up for communion but back in those days, 70, 60, 50 years ago, people didn’t automatically go up each week anyway.

I was one of those children. I just have to wonder about how divorced/remarried/married outside the church etc. people were supposedly not treated well by the Church. Wasn’t our experience for sure.

 

[Vadne]

Make no mistake. What the Kasperites are and have been doing for a long time now is, make it seem that those who would remain faithful to Church tradition are mean and unmerciful. Withhold Communion from people having sex outside marriage?? How mean and pre-Vatican II!!

It’s creeping incrementalism, the favorite trick of the Left.

If Amoris Laetitia is so in line with preceding teaching, funny it basically ignores Veritatis Splendor, which has lots to say of relevance to the issues the Kasperites are so eager to rewrite.

 

[I_trust]

Game changer?

Hardly.

Edit…out of charity

 

[oppositeman13]

From what I understand if the pope wanted to change official teaching the college of cardinals would vote on it - is that correct? or certainly there is some mechanism for the change to take place. I do understand that no one can invent a new teaching and that an official teaching can be clarified or reasonable extended. So, the archbishop is making it sound like AL fits into this nicely. I was thinking he made this connection as groundwork for the pope to actually try to do this. make sense to you?

 

[tseleehw]

Well, the bishops voted on the synod document back in 2015 and no where in the document can be found the controversial text that was in AL when it came out. Pope Francis added that in there himself. The paragraphs that touch on communion for the divorced and remarried in the synod document from 2015 barely passed with only one vote to spare, I believe, and the vote would have certainly failed had it not been for Pope Francis’ personal appointees that he sent to the synod. Had the text that ended up in AL been in the synod document, it would have likely failed by a large margin, given how a less controversial version had barely passed.

It is difficult to know how the College of Cardinals would vote, given such a situation, but if it were put to a vote by all of the bishops in the Church, I don’t think it would pass most likely. I admit that I could be wrong about this, but I think it would face a harsher response than it received at the synod a couple of years ago, since the makeup of the bishops there was skewed towards those who think like the Pope and the bishops who wrote the final document were personally appointed by him. Put it to a wider vote, and I don’t think most of the high ranking clergy in the Church would support such a change.

 

[pnewton]

I sure miss the rule that made people use the name of the article for the title. It helped avoid deception.

Paglia: Pope not backing down on pro-life cause, he’s doubling down

Again, the emphasis is on pro-life causes. That was the nature of the interview. Any other points touched on do not represent anything more than a passing remark. Interviews in the press are not going to be “game changers.”

I see a continuing problem of people reading for the sake of finding controversy, starting with Amoris Laetitia in which very little is said about divorce and remarriage. There is so much more there. I see a lot of folks who care more about getting mad and fighting than they do about being taught, which is the essence of being a disciple.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Your disrespect of the clergy you disagree with is disgusting.

I was never a huge fan of Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship. but I always referred to him with the utmost respect.

Cardinal Kasper deserves the same.

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Kasper deserves the same.

I too was taken aback by that. Talk about agenda posting. Cardinal Kaspar gets brought up out of the blue on a thread about AB Paglia emphasizing the the pro-life positions of the Church. I think some people here for one thing only, to bash clergy they consider too progressive, a very non-traditional Catholic thing to do.

 

[oppositeman13]

it is just amazing that he can teach in a way off the cuff that throws a monkey wrench into official teaching. I think this needs to be brought to a head very soon by the formal correction. The issues need to be faced squarely and dealt with for all our good. Going on like the way we are is nuts.

 

[oppositeman13]

I think there are some who desperately want to believe in what the pope is doing - perhaps they consider catholicism to demanding. They are angry for others making a stand for official teaching and so they fight back the only way they can - I been called a “pope basher” - a heretic and a few other words. The outcome of all this doesn’t look promising at the moment - I don’t see anyone backing down on their position.

 

[pnewton]

I think there are some who desperately want to believe in what the pope is doing

I know, and there are a variety of self-serving interests that some of them have. The name calling is always inappropriate. But do you really not agree with the Holy Father upholding the value of all human life? That was the basis of this particular interview. Not everything Catholics do for the next decade has to be about this one issue.

As far as we know, some of the infighting might be resentment left over since the conclave. The laity do not need to be so focused on the personalities involved that this one issue becomes all consuming. It has been said, maybe by you, that you follow Jesus, not the Pope. That is true. And that needs to be our focus.

 

[BlackFriar]

… in this interview the Archbishop said that Pope St. John Paul II laid the way for Church approval of Communion for the remarried. I think this is the first time this has been claimed.

Withhold Communion from people having sex outside marriage?? How mean and pre-Vatican II!!
It’s creeping incrementalism, the favorite trick of the Left.

What do you mean?
In FC Pope JPII himself was the first to allow Communion for sexually active “adulterers” under certain conditions.

As others have said, all priests know this and the understanding/practise is widespread since that time.
Pope Francis is building on this accepted pastoral compassion…not innovating something completely new.

JPII was the innovator on this who completely broke with tradition up until 1983 in allowing a specific class of repentant active “adulterers” access to Confession and so Communion.

 

[oppositeman13]

I did say that - our allegiance is to Christ and HIS Church and not to any human. The pope does say good things and we need to give him credit for that - but as the vicar of Christ that is his job - to call all of humanity to Catholicism and not to make Catholicism easier or different so the world is more accepting of it’s teachings. The traditionalists, at least some, think that the pope is deceiving us in some way and God is allowing it to separate the wheat from the chaff prior to the second coming - but it always comes down to people believe what they want - and will defend it regardless of how irrational their thinking is. We see this all the time throughout all aspects of human history - so there is nothing new here.