Malta: Priests ‘confused’ over bishops’ new guidelines

[ProdigalSun]

For an Apostle to rebuke the Pope to his face is in no way an example for us laity. The Sixth Ecumenical Council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius I was changed by Pope Leo II - that is one Pope rebuking another. Laity should not interpret the actions of Apostles and Popes as license for them to disrespect the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

If you would like to write a private letter to His Holiness Pope Francis I respectfully expressing your concerns, I think he would be grateful to receive it.

Are you saying that disagreeing with A Pope is disrepectful?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since the bishops involved have contrary positions on the matter it ought to be apparent that at least one of them is wrong. If your “certain” conscience justifies the reception of communion in Malta it would equally justify it in England since the appropriateness of receiving is determined by the state of one’s marriage, not simply by the decrees of bishops. It cannot be right in the Mediterranean and wrong in the North Sea: it is right or wrong everywhere. Again, that determination is not made by the bishops.
Not at all: if one has a certain conscience he may do as he pleases. That at least has been your position in the past. Why should an individual be required to assent to a bishop’s opinion when you have asserted he has no obligation to assent to the doctrines of the church?

Ender

If an irregular is Not conscious of grave sin they may approach for Communion according to Canon 916.

Canon 915 is about whether a priest is allowed to service such a one approaching.
If the local ordinary has determined my irregularity prohibits the priest from servicing in England then I will not approach.
If i am in Malta I will be serviced so I will approach.

All perfectly consistent obedient, and indeed practical, behaviour towards one’s local Ordinary and PP from the Communicants point of view. I am sure God asks nothing more of us laity who don’t actually have to wring their hands over these confusing matters but simply not disobey their ordinaries unless certain conscience, rarely, dictates otherwise.

I really don’t understand your problem…other than that you assume there is only one possible objective interpretation of what is going on here…that of Pope Ender .

Wise and reasonable bishops can still disagree over deciding what borderline matters contradict Canon 915 given the wider framework allowed by AL. It’s clearly a prudential applied decision on their parts…just as it is to decide what penances will be done in Lent.

You may not like it that they now have wider local prudential authority re setting the bar in canon 915…but as a Communicant that is not my problem. God just wants me to act within the authority of my Ordinary.

 

[Ender]

I really don’t understand your problem…other than that you assume there is only one possible objective interpretation of what is going on here…that of Pope Ender.

I at least recognize that there is a correct understanding of this issue, whether or not it is mine. Your position is that “You may” and “you may not” are equally valid and equally correct. The effect of this is to diminish the significance of taking communion at all, let alone of taking it invalidly.

Wise and reasonable bishops can still disagree over deciding what borderline matters contradict Canon 915 given the wider framework allowed by AL. It’s clearly a prudential applied decision on their parts…just as it is to decide what penances will be done in Lent.

I suppose if the Eucharist was merely symbolic as it is in Protestant churches this would be a reasonable comment, but the Catholic understanding is vastly different, and comparing whether or not to take communion with whether or not to eat fish on Friday rather profoundly misses the point.

You may not like it that they now have wider local prudential authority re setting the bar in canon 915…

Bishops have never had the authority to set the standard for the reception of communion, and they don’t have it now.

…but as a Communicant that is not my problem. God just wants me to act within the authority of my Ordinary.

I wonder that you say this given that your position is the Ordinary has no authority over you except in areas where he agrees with you. If you believed you might justly receive communion, why would you let a bishop deny it to you if you are certain you are justified in taking it?

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I at least recognize that there is a correct understanding of this issue, whether or not it is mine.

So what.
If I as a lay person do not understand the pros and cons, other than that I am not disobeying canons 915 and 916 who are you, or anyone for that matter, to say otherwise?

Your position is that “You may” and “you may not” are equally valid and equally correct. The effect of this is to diminish the significance of taking communion at all, let alone of taking it invalidly.

For a lay person obedience to one’s local representative of Christ in the face of uncertainty is more important than anything else Ender.
If you feel your local ordinary in canon 915 gives you freedom’s that your certain conscience denies you by all means don’t receive…but you have absolutely no grounds for gain-saying other lay persons who don’t share such certainty re your contrary views on canon 915.

It is in fact you who is using your certain conscience to oppose the new freedom Pope Francis gives local Ordinaries re determining what irregularities may or may not invoke 915.

Bishops have never had the authority to set the standard for the reception of communion, and they don’t have it now.

You know they do now, that is why you seem almost exploding with indignation re Malta and Argentina
Wake up and smell the Widnet il-Baħars.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Malta’s National Flower

 

[Ender]

If I as a lay person do not understand the pros and cons, other than that I am not disobeying canons 915 and 916 who are you, or anyone for that matter, to say otherwise?

Canon 916 instructs each of us to determine for himself whether we may properly receive communion. Canon 915, however, applies to what is publicly known. The reception by someone known to be in a condition of grave sin gives scandal to those who witness it. If you don’t understand this perhaps you shouldn’t say otherwise.

For a lay person obedience to one’s local representative of Christ in the face of uncertainty is more important than anything else Ender.

And what of the clergy who have been ordered to give communion to those meeting the conditions of 915? Is their obligation not to distribute the Eucharist unworthily not greater than their obligation of obedience?

If you feel your local ordinary in canon 915 gives you freedom’s that your certain conscience denies you by all means don’t receive…but you have absolutely no grounds for gain-saying other lay persons who don’t share such certainty re your contrary views on canon 915.

Are right and wrong now irrelevant? If we no longer care whether communion is being received improperly it can only be because the Eucharist is not really what we have believed it to be so it’s no big deal whether someone receives it who shouldn’t.

It is in fact you who is using your certain conscience to oppose the new freedom Pope Francis gives local Ordinaries re determining what irregularities may or may not invoke 915.

“Irregularities”? Are you unwilling to use the word sin, or do you believe that what was a sin yesterday is no longer a sin today?

You know they do now, that is why you seem almost exploding with indignation re Malta and Argentina .

Your characterization of my comments is pure fiction. Like your arguments, it doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

Ender

 

[RCinMT]

I wonder that you say this given that your position is the Ordinary has no authority over you except in areas where he agrees with you. If you believed you might justly receive communion, why would you let a bishop deny it to you if you are certain you are justified in taking it?

Ender

I noticed that this question was ignored. Wonder if BH might answer it?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Canon 916 instructs each of us to determine for himself whether we may properly receive communion. Canon 915, however, applies to what is publicly known. The reception by someone known to be in a condition of grave sin gives scandal to those who witness it.

Quite so, but in your great indignation re Pope Francis you are unable to keep focus on the original point…which is the lay woman who dwells in both jurisdictions and what is acceptable behaviour for her before God.
915 is not her problem, it’s implementation in each diocese is the Ordinary’s. If she is ok re canon 916 then where is her moral fault for approaching a priest for Communion ion in Malta?
Secondly, even re Malta you clearly accept scandal is a concern. Levels of scandal in a given country varies and is therefore a prudential aspect of 915, we’ll within the competence of the Ordinary to decide upon, especially as Pope Francis now provides that leeway.

And what of the clergy who have been ordered to give communion to those meeting the conditions of 915? Is their obligation not to distribute the Eucharist unworthily not greater than their obligation of obedience?

Not her problem.
Nor is it layman Ender’s problem. If there is a sin of “being a busybody” I suggest you objectively keep crossing that line on these issues . In doubtful matters God wants us lay people to look at our own affairs not worry about those that properly belong to the bishops and Pope Francis no matter how upset we get.

Are right and wrong now irrelevant? If we no longer care whether communion is being received improperly

Again, not my problem, not your problem, and not the problem of the woman in question here who has broken no canons in either country according to her local Ordinaries and Pope Francis. God expects no more of her regardless of the rights or wrongs. If it is objectively wrong someone else may carry the can. You obviously hold Pope Francis responsible. Do you think he will burn a long time for this too?

It can only be because the Eucharist is not really what we have believed it to be so it’s no big deal whether someone receives it who shouldn’t.

Do you accept there is also another logical alternative here: namely, it’s not what YOU have always believed? But of course you won’t answer me on this question because Pope and Moral Theologian Ender is much smarter and more pastorally experienced and educated than the average Pope.

Ender give it up…the irrationality of your indignant rhetoric grows by the post and rather than influencing the open minded you are now bordering on embarrassing yourself .
Something I would like to save you from.

 

[RCinMT]

Quite so, but in your great indignation re Pope Francis you are unable to keep focus on the original point…which is the lay woman who dwells in both jurisdictions and what is acceptable behaviour for her before God.
915 is not her problem, it’s implementation in each diocese is the Ordinary’s. If she is ok re canon 916 then where is her moral fault for approaching a priest for Communion ion in Malta?
Secondly, even re Malta you clearly accept scandal is a concern. Levels of scandal in a given country varies and is therefore a prudential aspect of 915, we’ll within the competence of the Ordinary to decide upon, especially as Pope Francis now provides that leeway.

Not her problem.
Nor is it layman Ender’s problem. If there is a sin of “being a busybody” I suggest you objectively keep crossing that line on these issues . In doubtful matters God wants us lay people to look at our own affairs not worry about those that properly belong to the bishops and Pope Francis no matter how upset we get.

Again, not my problem, not your problem, and not the problem of the woman in question here who has broken no canons in either country according to her local Ordinaries and Pope Francis. God expects no more of her regardless of the rights or wrongs. If it is objectively wrong someone else may carry the can. You obviously hold Pope Francis responsible. Do you think he will burn a long time for this too?

Do you accept there is also another logical alternative here: namely, it’s not what YOU have always believed? But of course you won’t answer me on this question because Pope and Moral Theologian Ender is much smarter and more pastorally experienced and educated than the average Pope.

Cite the doctrine or Bible verse that provides for people validly married to get divorced and engage in relationships with another person while the first marriage remains valid.

Ender give it up…the irrationality of your indignant rhetoric grows by the post and rather than influencing the open minded you are now bordering on embarrassing yourself .
Something I would like to save you from.

This is one of the most arrogant statements I’ve ever seen on these forms and sums up your offerings nicely: give your opinion, defend it as dogmatic and when questioned attack others or say “not my problem”.

Just tell the truth: you have an opinion. Your opinion isn’t backed up by theology, doctrine or the Bible and your only defense is abstract reasoning and out-of-context quotes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Cite the doctrine or Bible verse that provides for people validly married to get divorced and engage in relationships with another person while the first marriage remains valid.

Er, ahem.
The topic is about Communion of such…and the salient examples the Cardinals have in mind are mostly not to do with “valid first marriages” but “putatively valid” first marriages. An important canon law distinction.

And this case here does seem to be more about canon 915.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I noticed that this question was ignored. Wonder if BH might answer it?

The answer is fairly obvious and trivial to the minds of the open hearted.
In ths Bible confusion and incomprehension is often the lot of those who cannot yet love their “enemies.”

 

[Ender]

you are unable to keep focus on the original point…which is the lay woman who dwells in both jurisdictions and what is acceptable behaviour for her before God.

It is rather astonishing that you would frame the issue this way as it is your position that what is acceptable in Malta differs from what is acceptable in Portsmouth. Is God really so fickle?

915 is not her problem, it’s implementation in each diocese is the Ordinary’s.

This is only partly true. Its implementation is actually the responsibility of everyone who administers communion. It is surely the case that bishops have been setting the guidelines for its enforcement, but in the end the responsibility lies with the minister of communion. Beyond that, there is clearly a limit to what behavior a bishop can excuse…and it doesn’t include grave sin.

Secondly, even re Malta you clearly accept scandal is a concern. Levels of scandal in a given country varies and is therefore a prudential aspect of 915, we’ll within the competence of the Ordinary to decide upon, especially as Pope Francis now provides that leeway.

So you’re suggesting that once people come to accept scandalous behavior it’s no longer a concern because it’s no longer scandalous? You have reduced morality to prudential choice, which I guess accords with your position that one is justified in doing whatever he thinks is right, but the effect of this is that right and wrong lose their distinction, which would explain why “yes” and “no” are equally acceptable to you.

In doubtful matters God wants us lay people to look at our own affairs not worry about those that properly belong to the bishops and Pope Francis no matter how upset we get.

Well, I don’t have God on speed dial so I’m reluctant to speak for him, but inasmuch as this is an issue that affects the entire church it is well within the right of the laity to speak out on it, if only to correct the errors presented by others of the laity.

You obviously hold Pope Francis responsible. Do you think he will burn a long time for this too?

You are disappointingly indifferent to the truth or you wouldn’t be so facile with these inventions.

Do you accept there is also another logical alternative here: namely, it’s not what YOU have always believed?

Until I hear a logical alternative I won’t know what one is. You certainly haven’t provided one.

But of course you won’t answer me on this question because Pope and Moral Theologian Ender is much smarter and more pastorally experienced and educated than the average Pope.

I’m not actually contesting the pope, at least I’ve not seen him post anything here. I’m contesting you, which is a much simpler task.

Ender give it up…the irrationality of your indignant rhetoric grows by the post and rather than influencing the open minded you are now bordering on embarrassing yourself. Something I would like to save you from.

You really need to include the word “disingenuous” in your vocabulary.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The topic is about Communion of such…and the salient examples the Cardinals have in mind are mostly not to do with “valid first marriages” but “putatively valid” first marriages. An important canon law distinction.

Canon law becomes an irrelevancy when there are no canons applying it. The Malta bishops have essentially said the church doesn’t care whether you receive or not, you decide if you’re worthy, we have no opinion on the matter. Suggesting there is some canon law distinction really misses the point.

And even you don’t believe what you’ve written - or at least don’t recognize the inconsistency. There can hardly be a canon law distinction that applies in England that is irrelevant in Malta.

And this case here does seem to be more about canon 915.

No, it doesn’t. In fact the discussion was proceeding without even a mention of 915 until you just recently introduced it into the discussion. This issue is about a great deal more than how a single canon is enforced.

Ender

 

[Ender]

In ths Bible confusion and incomprehension is often the lot of those who cannot yet love their “enemies.”

It is difficult to imagine something that could better illustrate the meaning of the phrase “paying lip service to”. But in any event you have again focused on the wrong target. The issue here is not one of mercy, forgiveness, and loving one’s enemies. It is about truth: specifically, what is the right way to deal with the divorced and remarried as it pertains to communion? I understand that in a subjective world where right and wrong are whatever the individual believes them to be the question is irrelevant, but in a world of objective truths one way is right and the opposite way is wrong. This issue is about which way is right.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is rather astonishing that you would frame the issue this way as it is your position that what is acceptable in Malta differs from what is acceptable in Portsmouth. Is God really so fickle?

The problem is ?

This is only partly true. Its implementation is actually the responsibility of everyone who administers communion.

Focus Ender. Canon 915 imposes absolutely no obligations on a communicant, in this case the woman in question.
You are making ridiculous assertions you yourself would never accept if it weren’t for the fact its a desperate attempt to shore up your intellectually over extended rhetorics below that I hope you now regret making.

It is surely the case that bishops have been setting the guidelines for its enforcement, but in the end the responsibility lies with the minister of communion.

How many times must it be said this is not the woman’s problem. It is the PPs problem and the bishop’s problem.

Beyond that, there is clearly a limit to what behavior a bishop can excuse…and it doesn’t include grave sin.

Again, not the woman’s problem as you have so clearly opined below.

So you’re suggesting that once people come to accept scandalous behavior it’s no longer a concern because it’s no longer scandalous?

Not the woman’s problem.
Judegments as to what reaches the level of public scandal needed to trigger activation of canon 915 is not the woman’s decision, not my decision, not your decision.
Pope Francis has clearly made it the Ordinary’s decision where once it was the Pope’s alone. Sure, that may make for problems for a PP in Malta if in conscience he cannot accept this. Again, not the communicant’s problem.

You have reduced morality to prudential choice, which I guess accords with your position that one is justified in doing whatever he thinks is right, but the effect of this is that right and wrong lose their distinction, which would explain why “yes” and “no” are equally acceptable to you.

Spoken like a layman who cannot accept any other valid view other than his own…even if he denies a Pope better theologically and pastorally educated than himself .
And still even if pigs could fly and you were correct…it still isn’t the woman’s problem or fault. If Cardinals cannot agree on the rights or wrongs of the matter why would we expect her to? All she has to do is make choices within the known limits of the jurisdictions in which she lives, God asks no more of us laity (esp in confusing times) regardless of the alleged rights and wrongs.

Well, I don’t have God on speed dial so I’m reluctant to speak for him, but inasmuch as this is an issue that affects the entire church it is well within the right of the laity to speak out on it, if only to correct the errors presented by others of the laity.

There is no error in asserting that lay Catholics are free to take advantage of whatever leniencies validly apply in different jurisdictions so long as they do not act against their certain consciences in doing so.

Provide a Magisterial denial of this if you can please?

You are disappointingly indifferent to the truth or you wouldn’t be so facile with these inventions.

I regard you as in error if you deny the previous assertion and cannot prove cogent Magisterial comment to support your unusual view.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Canon law becomes an irrelevancy when there are no canons applying it.

You’ve lost focus again. If you go back to the source of RCMITs tangent it was this:

“BH: Do you accept there is also another logical alternative here: namely, it’s not what YOU have always believed? But of course you won’t answer me on this question because Pope and Moral Theologian Ender is much smarter and more pastorally experienced and educated than the average Pope.”
Is there a reason why you are unable to respond to this observation…as predicted?

Perhaps my logic is irrefutable? But of course Pope Ender is infallible so self-error isn’t a practical possibility no matter how logical…is that the sort of response you would like to come back with but even your skin isn’t that thick .

No, it doesn’t. In fact the discussion was proceeding without even a mention of 915 until you just recently introduced it into the discussion. This issue is about a great deal more than how a single canon is enforced.

Its about the woman in two jurisdictions at the moment.
You have condemned her unjustly for acting one way in one country, and differently when allowed freedom in Malta to act within her conscience without being refused by the minister. Your views re her have no rational basis and you are skidding around to provide one.
Why not just admit you went too far on this point with your indignant rhetoric .
Its not a big deal to make intellectual mistakes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is difficult to imagine something that could better illustrate the meaning of the phrase “paying lip service to”. But in any event you have again focused on the wrong target. The issue here is not one of mercy, forgiveness, and loving one’s enemies. It is about truth: specifically, what is the right way to deal with the divorced and remarried as it pertains to communion? I understand that in a subjective world where right and wrong are whatever the individual believes them to be the question is irrelevant, but in a world of objective truths one way is right and the opposite way is wrong. This issue is about which way is right.

Ender

Your “extreme realism” approach to “absolute truth” has not accounted for the influence of the will on the intellect. You assume humans are like angels whose intellects grasp absolute truth accurately even those whose hearts are opposed to God.

Humans, especially fallen ones like you and me, operate very differently.
For us the mind regularly will not see what the heart cannot yet accept.

Your philosophy of man and knowledge (let alone faith) is deeply flawed down this cleft I am afraid Ender. It comes through in every topic you approach and limits you seeing the bigger picture. I don’t expect you to accept this assertion, it is simply for your spiritual growth from a fellow Catholic. If you cannot the possibility just treat me as the idiot I obviously am and move on. God’s peace.

 

[Ender]

The problem is?

The problem is that if you make the issue one of behaving in a way acceptable to God it is hardly sensible to suggest that what is acceptable to him in Malta would be unacceptable to him in England.

Canon 915 imposes absolutely no obligations on a communicant, in this case the woman in question.

True, 915 discusses the obligation of the person who ministers communion, not of the one who receives it. Nor have I suggested otherwise.

How many times must it be said this is not the woman’s problem. It is the PPs problem and the bishop’s problem.

I guess that depends on how many times you misread my comment. Nor is it solely the bishop’s problem. As I said, the responsibility for not distributing communion to someone who is publicly unworthy lies with the individual actually administering communion.

Judgements as to what reaches the level of public scandal needed to trigger activation of canon 915 is not the woman’s decision, not my decision, not your decision.

No, 915 is not triggered by the concern for scandal. Yes, scandal is a concern, but that is not what 915 is really about. Now you’re just making this stuff up.

Pope Francis has clearly made it the Ordinary’s decision where once it was the Pope’s alone.

This is more invention. It was never the pope’s decision alone any more than it was ever the bishop’s alone. It is now as it has always been: the responsibility of the minister. It is a responsibility from which not even a pope can absolve the minister. Yes, the bishop can, and frequently indicate what does or does not trigger the canon, but in the end the responsibility lies with the minister.

Spoken like a layman who cannot accept any other valid view other than his own…even if he denies a Pope better theologically and pastorally educated than himself.

I’m not arguing with the pope, I’m arguing with you, and you’ve said nothing that suggests a familiarity with the topic.

And still even if pigs could fly and you were correct…it still isn’t the woman’s problem or fault. If Cardinals cannot agree on the rights or wrongs of the matter why would we expect her to? All she has to do is make choices within the known limits of the jurisdictions in which she lives, God asks no more of us laity (esp in confusing times) regardless of the alleged rights and wrongs.

I think I’ve figured out why we seem to be having parallel conversations here: to me this is a question of right and wrong, and that’s not part of your calculation. You don’t argue whether it’s right or wrong in any absolute sense, only whether it is acceptable to this or that bishop.

There is no error in asserting that lay Catholics are free to take advantage of whatever leniencies validly apply in different jurisdictions so long as they do not act against their certain consciences in doing so.

This is true. The actual question being debated, however, is whether dispensation for the divorced and remarried to receive communion is actually a “valid leniency”.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Perhaps my logic is irrefutable?

Logic is irrefutable. Your comments, however, are neither.

Its about the woman in two jurisdictions at the moment.
You have condemned her unjustly for acting one way in one country, and differently when allowed freedom in Malta to act within her conscience without being refused by the minister.

No, I haven’t. Nor does anything I’ve said justify this conclusion. Why don’t you cite the comment I made that you think supports your accusation. You say I have condemned her; I say I have not. Here’s your chance to publicly humiliate me for my error. Go for it. I would add “or admit the charge is baseless” but as the likelihood of getting an admission of error from you is little better than the chance of winning the lottery, that request seems pointless.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Your “extreme realism” approach to “absolute truth” has not accounted for the influence of the will on the intellect. You assume humans are like angels whose intellects grasp absolute truth accurately even those whose hearts are opposed to God.

Given your difficulty in comprehending what I’ve actually said, there is really no possibility of your knowing what I assume.

Your philosophy of man and knowledge (let alone faith) is deeply flawed down this cleft I am afraid Ender.

If your responses to me were based on what I say you might have a different perspective, but as long as you make assumptions about what I think there is little likelihood that you will understand my position.

I don’t expect you to accept this assertion…

No, I don’t accept your assertions because they are just that: assertions. They are not arguments.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Given your difficulty in comprehending what I’ve actually said, there is really no possibility of your knowing what I assume.
If your responses to me were based on what I say you might have a different perspective, but as long as you make assumptions about what I think there is little likelihood that you will understand my position.
No, I don’t accept your assertions because they are just that: assertions. They are not arguments.

Ender

It is spiritual advice Ender from someone who can see your back, something none of us can do for ourselves.

And still you turn this into a war where someone must be right and someone must be wrong, someone is the goody, someone is the baddy, someone must be in error and if they are I don’t need to listen…and it cannot be you .