Interview with Archbishop Paglia - Gamechanger?

[BlackFriar]

You yourself just quoted how he gave access to Confession even for sexual activity failings

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who … ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.’”

What is your difficulty with what I stated exactly?
Do you believe regularly confessed sexual lapses are somehow not “sexual activity”?

 

[I_trust]

Still waiting for your evidence.

Admittance to the Sacrament of Confession is not the same as admittance to the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

Yes, those who REPENT from adultery and intend to never commit it again are allowed to confess.

Those who have REPENTED from their adultery, have received absolution, and intend never to be “sexually active” again with anyone other than their one and only true first spouse may receive Communion.

This is entirely different than someone who is, and intends to remain, sexually active with their new “spouse” receiving Communion.

 

[BlackFriar]

Admittance to the Sacrament of Confession is not the same as admittance to the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

If those in a remarriage repent and are absolved of all sin in Confession then they have complete access to Communion until they sexually lapse again and return. Before JPII this was not possible.

Therefore, if the remarried regularly lapse and regularly confess then sexually active remarried are in fact being admitted to Communion.

“Sexually active” does not somehow become “non sexually active” merely because the habit is repented of.

I stand by my summary.
In case you have lost track of what was actually said here it is again:

Question: Did JPII break completely with tradition and allow Confession and Communion to remarried couples (even if sexually active)?
Answer: Yes he did.
JPII is the innovator who broke with Tradition - not FI

If you cannot accept this then it seems your difficulty may not be with me but with comprehension of the English language.

 

[I_trust]

Therefore, if the remarried regularly lapse and regularly confess then sexually active remarried are in fact being admitted to Communion.

“Sexually active” does not somehow become “non sexually active” merely because the habit is repented of.

So you are equating repeating a sexual sin…each time repented and confessed to “being sexually active” at every moment.

Then tell me, is a person “sexually active” after repenting of the sexual sin, and after confessing and subsequently never falling into the sin again?

Of course he is not “sexually active” if he has repented, confessed and never sins in this way again.

So at the time that he receives Communion, the repentant, absolved sinner can not be called “sexually active” since he has no intention of sinning in this way again.
If, and only if he falls again can he then be considered sexually active.

Would a person be considered “sexually active” if there was a span of a year or a decade between falls? Should he not receive even if during the decade he sincerely repents and receives absolution?

I believe my comprehension of the English language is fine.

 

[BlackFriar]

Would a person be considered “sexually active” if there was a span of a year or a decade between falls?

This isn’t a thought experiment, its about real people who tend to act differently from mental scenarios that pastorally inexperienced theoreticians might cogitate.

Red blooded people in their 30s who love each other and cohabit together do not lapse once yearly.
Even St Paul observed, even of single males who aren’t regularly alone with those they are romantically involved with, that it is better to marry than burn. Habitual lapsing will be normal for significant numbers of well intentioned couples.
Moral theologians remind us often of the reality of “occasions of sin”: e.g.

Theologians distinguish between the proximate and the remote occasion. … De Lugo defines proximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.

It is certain that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it. A refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution.

Lets be realistic. In my pastoral experience, and that of many pastor friends,JPIIs abstention solution causes significant numbers of such couples to “lapse” almost as widely and as often as single Catholic men might masturbate.

Its good that they can receive Communion inbetween times after confession but I personally do not believe the situation (swinging between grave sin and Confession monthly or more) for these couples is a healthy one. It seems to contradict the practical sexual wisdom of St Paul and many Fathers and moral theologians since.

So yes I call this allowing the sexually active irregulars to Communion.
You can try and knock it down with the death of a thousand small theoretic cuts but it wont wash for many who maturely acknowledge or have experienced the normal human realities I speak of.

As I say, JPII is the innovator not FI.
And its time to either reverse JPII’s innovative exception (Communion for abstentors) or modify JPII’s exception into something more humane for more people.

Its fairly clear which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Vadne]

“Therefore, if the remarried regularly lapse and regularly confess then sexually active remarried are in fact being admitted to Communion.”

Wrong. The sequence of events is, Have sex illicitly; be absolved; receive Communion. At that point you are not sexually active. If you have sex illicitly again, you are.

Of course there is also the issue of using confession inappropriately. If you have no intention of stopping your sexual sins…the priest is not supposed to be absolving you.

 

[BlackFriar]

Of course there is also the issue of using confession inappropriately. If you have no intention of stopping your sexual sins…the priest is not supposed to be absolving you.

Agreed. This is one of the implicit points I am making. When is a glass half full actually better understood as a glass half empty. Its a prudential judgement.
But whatever way one tries to slice and dice it the amount of beer is the same no matter who looks at the glass. And likwise habitual lapsing or habitual intent…the habitual sexual activity is still objectively intrinsic to the overall situation.

These allegedly repeatedly repentant sexually active “adulters” are also admitted to Communion with the Church’s toleration … whereas before JPII it was not possible whatsoever.

Who can deny this innovative reality of JPII that broke completely with ancient tradition?

The sequence of events is, Have sex illicitly; be absolved; receive Communion. At that point you are not sexually active. If you have sex illicitly again, you are.

Viewing the situation in some sort of schizophrenic serial now I am sexually active, now I am not, …seems … too weird to contemplate further. Habitual sexual activity is habitual sexual activity whether serially repentant and confessed or not … a glass half full or half empty still only contains 50% beer either way.

 

[BlackFriar]

Guess who wrote this in 1972?
Does any of it sound familiar?
Clue: Its not Fr. Walter Kasper.

Thereby arises, however, the practical question, whether we can name such an emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. Such an arrangement seems to me to be for two reasons in accord with the tradition.

If in the second marriage moral obligations to the children, to the family, and so also to the woman have arisen, and no similar commitments from the first marriage exist, and if thus for moral reasons the abandonment of the second marriage is inadmissible, and on the other hand practically speaking abstinence presents no real possibility (magnorum est, says Gregory II), the opening up of community in Communion after a period of probation appears to be no less than just and to be fully in line with the Church’s tradition: The granting of communio cannot here depend on an act that is either immoral or practically speaking impossible.

 

[Vico]

If in the second marriage moral obligations to the children, to the family, and so also to the woman have arisen, and no similar commitments from the first marriage exist, and if thus for moral reasons the abandonment of the second marriage is inadmissible, and on the other hand practically speaking abstinence presents no real possibility (magnorum est, says Gregory II), the opening up of community in Communion after a period of probation appears to be no less than just and to be fully in line with the Church’s tradition: The granting of communio cannot here depend on an act that is either immoral or practically speaking impossible.

Joseph Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung” in Ehe und Ehescheidung: Diskussion unter Christen, Kösel-Verlag, München, 1972, pp. 35-56.

Translated by Joseph Bolin http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

 

[BlackFriar]

Well done!

So it seems Pope Benedict is in fact the hidden mentor behind the foundations of both JPIIs abstention break with tradition and F1s AL which is but a completing of Pope Benedict’s original insights of 1972.
Perfect harmony btween all three Popes despite the naysayers.
To support one is in fact to support them all.

 

[I_trust]

Familiaris Consortio

Actually, since the writing of Fr. Ratzinger occurred in 1972, prior to Familiaris Consortio in 1981, it is most likely that Pope John Paul II considered this line of thinking but rejected it since Familiaris Consortio states:
“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who … ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.’”

So Father Ratzinger’s writing shows it was considered and rejected. Further there are later writings by Cardinal Ratzinger which clearly spell out that his thoughts on the matter did not reflect his earlier writing (when he was acting not as a Pope or even a Cardinal prefect)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

So the assertion that this earlier writing by then professor of theology Fr. Ratzinger establishes a consistent support for Communion for the divorced and remarried is contradicted by Cardinal Ratzinger’s and Pope John Paul’s teaching.

 

[Vico]

I_trust:

Familiaris Consortio

Actually, since the writing of Fr. Ratzinger occurred in 1972, prior to Familiaris Consortio in 1981, it is most likely that Pope John Paul II considered this line of thinking but rejected it since Familiaris Consortio states:
“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who … ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.’”

So Father Ratzinger’s writing shows it was considered and rejected. Further there are later writings by Cardinal Ratzinger which clearly spell out that his thoughts on the matter did not reflect his earlier writing (when he was acting not as a Pope or even a Cardinal prefect)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

So the assertion that this earlier writing by then professor of theology Fr. Ratzinger establishes a consistent support for Communion for the divorced and remarried is contradicted by Cardinal Ratzinger’s and Pope John Paul’s teaching.

Even more recently, 22 February 2007, is the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis or H.H. Pope Benedict XVI:

The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage

1. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.

 

[BlackFriar]

The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments,

Gentlemen, I will accept there appears to be surface disharmony but my main points were:
(a) Pope Benedict’s research and conclusions of 1972 are clearly the foundational roots from which these developments have stemmed. Neither F1 not JP2 are the foundational, innovative thinkers here.
(b) FC was a complete break with tradition. Therefore this accusation cannot be brought against F1 unless it is brought against JP2 also.
If this cannot be countenanced then naysayers would seem to be logically required to explain the dissonance on the basis of Communion denial on the basis of practice/discipline not doctrine.
Do note B16 used the word “practice”.

So no, I don’t think JPII rejected anything from the 1972 article necessarily - though he certainly felt unable to go beyond the unheard of innovation that he did actually impliment from it. Admission of some divorced and remarried to the sacraments.

But lets inspect your alleged charge of disharmony.
Would you care to explain the boldened quote above - in fact JP2 did just this didn’t he?
He did in fact allow some types of divorced and remarried admission to the sacraments of Reconciliation and so Communion didn’t he?

Therefore I suggest B16 in SC 2007 may be saying something other than what you appear to be asserting…

Lets remember the issue is admission to Communion, not the teaching on the indissolubility of most Catholic marriages before a priest.

 

[I_trust]

Since these points are being debated on a separate thread I will stop posting here.

 

[Vico]

Therefore I suggest B16 in SC 2007 may be saying something other than what you appear to be asserting…

I am not asserting so please ignore any appearances of it.

I will post another statement on internal forum solution from April 11, 1973, from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Regarding the administration of the Sacraments, local Ordinaries should strive, on one hand, to encourage the observance of the discipline in force in the Church, and on the other hand, to act so that pastors of souls show particular solicitude toward those who live in an irregular union, seeking to resolve these cases through the use of the approved practices of the Church in the internal forum, as well as other just means.

Communicating these things to you with devoted respect, I remain yours,

+ Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...19730411_indissolubilitate-matrimonii_en.html

Clarification of the meaning of “the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum” was made in 1975 by Archbishop Jean Hamer, secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“The couples may be allowed to receive the sacraments on two conditions, that they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal.”

http://www.ldysinger.com/THM_544_Ma...al Forum Solutions.HTM#Letter_1973-SCDF_1975_

 

[BlackFriar]

Clarification of the meaning of “the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum” was made in 1975

Do you consider this an approved practice or a clarification of unchanging doctrine?

 

[BlackFriar]

Which thread should I join you on?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Clarification of the meaning of “the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum” was made in 1975

Do you consider this an approved practice or a clarification of unchanging doctrine?

Not sure what you mean by “this”. Do you mean the 1975 statement?
Approved practices are subservient to dogmas of faith, they are just. Note the phrase “approved practices of the Church in the internal forum, as well as other just means”.

 

[BlackFriar]

So JP2s innovative practices are a means to an end (doctrine).
Sounds like application, therefore prudential.

 

[Vico]

So JP2s innovative practices are a means to an end (doctrine).
Sounds like application, theregore prudential.

It was Pope Paul VI agreed to halt, retroactively, the automatic excommunication of divorced and remarried Catholics in the USA, which was established by the Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was pastoral action to extend a reconciling gesture to divorced and remarried Catholics and encourage them to seek regularization of their status. Archbishop Jean Jadot, Apostolic Delegate to the USA from 1973 to 1980, would not permit divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments unless they regularized their second marriage through the tribunal process.