Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[ChurchSoldier]

Read the Catechism.
NOTHING, as a “stand alone” is ever a mortal sin.
Mortal sin has three requirements.
**Only GOD can judge whether they are all met. Not you. Not anyone. **

Is it a mental illness when the need for black and white pronouncements by authorities trumps a properly formed conscience and it’s judgement.

Not true, but often stated.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I sympathise but I think what’s at heart of the exhortation is not a “do your own thing as long as it’s not expressly sinful”, it’s calling on all of us (particularly those amongst us who are prone to be more judgemental than we ought) to look at the modern world prudently and practically.

Nowhere can anyone possibly read into this document any reversal or muting of anything previously stated by any pope. What Pope Francis has done is to remind us that real life is extraodinarily varied and complex (which is one of its beauties). The Church’s tendency towards inflexibility in its pastoral care in the past has been the cause of at least as much disobedience as anything else. He has not inaugurated a free-for-all.

Human life is by its nature confusing and ambiguous and wonderful - and yes sinful as well. He is asking all of us - and particularly I suppose bishops and priests in shepherding their own flocks - to bear that in mind in our relations with one another.

I agree with you completely. I have been up since the wee hours of this morning pouring over the document. Mostly focussing of paragraph 297 and beyond. As an ordained cleric I am the particular person in my parish who gets the brunt of inquiries regarding this very topic. The exhort solidifies my understanding regarding the permanency of Marriage. It also reaffirmed my understanding of the Church’s path towards integrating those who are in irregular situations in the parish. That Path? Annulment. Paragraph 297 is, in my interpretation, points directly to annulment. He even quotes sacred scripture (Matt 18:17) for the basis. Based on this when I am approached regarding this I will certainly pastorally and gently inform people of the correct path toward integration into the community…that path is the Merciful opportunity of evaluation and discernment through the annulment process. Ignorance is not bliss.

 

[dmar198]

I can’t find a full version of the document in English online yet, but based initial reviews from various news sources, there seems to be just enough conformity to doctrine, and wiggle room, to let traditionalists and progressives find something they can claim as a victory.

There is a full, non-pdf version here:

Full Text of Pope Francis’ New Document on the Family
historyandapologetics.com/2016/04/full-text-of-amoris-laetitia.html

 

[phil19034]

An Opus Dei priest was talking about it on Relevant Radio this morning. He said it does a good job of attempting to explain why the Church believes what it believes, starting with Scripture in Chapter 1

 

[christofirst]

There is a full, non-pdf version here:

Full Text of Pope Francis’ New Document on the Family
historyandapologetics.com/2016/04/full-text-of-amoris-laetitia.html

There is a link on the following website to read the full Exhortation in English: en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/08/pope_francis_apostolic_exhortation_on_the_joy_of_love/1221178

Thanks for the links. I’m reading through it now, but it will take time, and as Pope Francis says, I shouldn’t rush through it .

 

[phil19034]

CNN breaking news headline

“In a highly anticipated paper, Pope Francis urges greater acceptance of gay men, lesbians, divorced Catholics and other people living in what the Catholic Church calls “irregular” situations.”

Maybe he is being misquoted , maybe he is not:
That’s what happens when you are not clear

There goes the media, twisting the the Popes words already.

That CNN aritical has so many false statements, it’s insane. It’s obvious the author didn’t even read the document.

Lord, please have mercy on their souls.

 

[ARSpade]

That Path? Annulment. Paragraph 297 is, in my interpretation, points directly to annulment. He even quotes sacred scripture (Matt 18:17) for the basis. Based on this when I am approached regarding this I will certainly pastorally and gently inform people of the correct path toward integration into the community…that path is the Merciful opportunity of evaluation and discernment through the annulment process. Ignorance is not bliss.

And what about those who’s marriages aren’t and can’t be annulled? Every time I see people talk about the process these days it sounds like we’re basically going to “fancy Catholic divorce”.

 

[PatrickSebast]

It’s what I expected. Ambiguity that will breed disobedience and confusion. Instead of helping families it is further damaging us. In my opinion, saying this is about the family is like calling birth control family planning or abortion a “choice”.

I’m sad.

Honestly at 264 pages with several very clear statements and expressions I am getting more solidified in my belief that most of the ‘ambiguity’ seen in Pope Francis’ teaching is imagined primarily because of the desire for rigid simple rules and expressions that he is speaking out against.

This isn’t ambiguous:

I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.” The Church’s pastors, in proposing to the faithful the full ideal of the Gospel and the Church’s teaching, must also help them to treat the weak with compassion, avoiding aggravation or unduly harsh or hasty judgements. The Gospel itself tells us not to judge or condemn (cf. Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37). Jesus “expects us to stop looking for those personal or communal niches which shelter us from the maelstrom of human misfortune, and instead to enter into the reality of other people’s lives and to know the power of tenderness. Whenever we do so, our lives become wonderfully complicated.”

This is a theme he repeats again and again. He understands 100% that there are people who want hard fast rules and is explicitly stating that they are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.

 

[phil19034]

And what about those who’s marriages aren’t and can’t be annulled? Every time I see people talk about the process these days it sounds like we’re basically going to “fancy Catholic divorce”.

If your marriage can’t be annulled, you are still married to your spouse. Which means sexual activity with another is adultry, just as its been for 2000 years.

This doesn’t change. The goal is to reduce the number of Catholics getting divorced and committing sexual sin; not to find a way to give communion to people who cannot receive absolution.

 

[Neofight]

As often is the case, reaction is more disconcerting than Papal statements :

The Pope writes:“The debates carried on in the media, in certain publications and even among the Church’s ministers, range from an immoderate desire for total change without sufficient reflection or grounding, to an attitude that would solve everything by applying general rules or deriving undue conclusions from particular theological considerations”*.

He appears to be spot on because secularists seem to be gravitating to anything goes, and many of the faithful want everything in black and white.

Only somewhere in the middle is found mercy and compassion.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!

 

[ARSpade]

He understands 100% that there are people who want hard fast rules and is explicitly stating that they are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.

Ah, so those who like hard and fast rules, like following the word of Christ, are not good for the Church and need to change. I guess they’re the only ones who need to?

“You, guy who thinks divorce is adultery. You don’t benefit the church. You, guy who left his wife of 15 years for a 22 year old who now wants a church wedding. You’re good. Come on in.”

 

[Obsidion]

It’s what I expected. Ambiguity that will breed disobedience and confusion. Instead of helping families it is further damaging us. In my opinion, saying this is about the family is like calling birth control family planning or abortion a “choice”.

I’m sad.

I agree 100%. I’m tired of hearing stuff like this. It just discourages me. I wish he wouldn’t make so many vague statements that anyone can twist. He needs to make his statements so strong and clear that there’s no room for misunderstanding.

 

[SWolf]

It’s what I expected. Ambiguity that will breed disobedience and confusion. Instead of helping families it is further damaging us. In my opinion, saying this is about the family is like calling birth control family planning or abortion a “choice”.

I’m sad.

Yup. If you can’t be clear about your beliefs in over 200 pages, it leaves many to the rational conclusion that your beliefs are, at best, wishy-washy.

Papal documents used to be known for their clarity. When encyclicals are now over three times longer than before, and more vague, there’s a real problem.

 

[Usige]

And as it is applied it has the potential to be a disaster from a pastoral standpoint. Think of it this way. Priest A says yes go ahead receive communion. Priest A is transferred (or the more likely situation retires) and Priest B arrives. Priest B then says NO WAY, since you haven’t even lifted a finger and taken the Matter to the Church ( as Pope Francis state in paragraph 297 of the exhortation [quoting Matthew 18:17]) in processing an annulment you are to join in with us in a spiritual communion. It sets up a dichotomy of Good Priest/Bad Priest…the question is even further complicated by understanding who which priest is truly the Good priest. A hospital for souls indeed. A hospital that has doctors who need to inform their patients of their illnesses.

Yes, that is my same concern after reading 296-300. The above seems to be likely with 300; in particular:
What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.
Those then point back the catechism 1735 by way of Evangelli Gaudium that speaks to reduced culpability for social reasons. The foot note says that “with regard to sacramental discipline, … discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” That could be interpreted as saying that a pastor can meet with a couple that is remarried w/o an annulment and say that they have reduced culpability simply because societal norms allow for remarriage. Because of the reduced culpability sacramental discipline might not apply to them even if it did for others.

I am still reading, re-reading, and praying, but I can already see where people will cherry pick things and simply say everything comes down to individual discernment and if you don’t feel it was a grave sin then sacramental discipline doesn’t apply in your case. I think too many people will want to gloss over the part about “helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.” :nope:

 

[SWolf]

This is a theme he repeats again and again. He understands 100% that there are people who want hard fast rules and is explicitly stating that they are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.

Isn’t that incredibly judgmental?

 

[PatrickSebast]

Ah, so those who like hard and fast rules, like following the word of Christ, are not good for the Church and need to change. I guess they’re the only ones who need to?

“You, guy who thinks divorce is adultery. You don’t benefit the church. You, guy who left his wife of 15 years for a 22 year old who now wants a church wedding. You’re good. Come on in.”

He wrote very clearly on the reality and value of the Church’s teachings. The swing against hard and fast rules in pastoral care. The demand for some formula that allows us to plug a list of variables into a computer to determine whether it is to the benefit or detriment of a person’s soul that they be admitted to communion or other facets of the Church.

You purposely select situations lacking in love while ignoring situations such as the wife who has abandoned for the 22 year old, left to fend for herself and found comfort in a man who offered love and support to her and her 3 children. Or the long established 2nd marriage with a full family of children whose separation could cause harm to said children. People who may desire to be in communion with the Church, but struggle with the reality that living and supporting children together leads to intimacy.

The teaching that a valid marriage can not be dissolved does not change, but the removal of the idea that people can be objectively and continuously locked in a state of Mortal Sin is a probably the most clear-cut expression Francis could give on this:

Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. As the Synod Fathers
put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to
make a decision”.

Simple rigidity denies compassion and understanding. So yes, those who like hard fast rules need to change. That has been a pretty consistent theme of this Papacy. And I believe that the vast majority of claims that Pope Francis is too ‘ambiguous’ is just people lashing out against this idea.

 

[SWolf]

He wrote very clearly on the reality and value of the Church’s teachings. The swing against hard and fast rules in pastoral care. The demand for some formula that allows us to plug a list of variables into a computer to determine whether it is to the benefit or detriment of a person’s soul that they be admitted to communion or other facets of the Church.

Simple rigidity denies compassion and understanding. So yes, those who like hard fast rules need to change. That has been a pretty consistent theme of this Papacy. And I believe that the vast majority of claims that Pope Francis is too ‘ambiguous’ is just people lashing out against this idea.

You purposely select situations lacking in love while ignoring situations such as the wife who has abandoned for the 22 year old, left to fend for herself and found comfort in a man who offered love and support to her and her 3 children. Or the long established 2nd marriage with a full family of children whose separation could cause harm to said children. People who may desire to be in communion with the Church, but struggle with the reality that living and supporting children together leads to intimacy.

Why is this lie always brought forth? They do not need to separate. They only need to stop having sex. A simple confession would solve this issue and resolving to sin no more.

Bearing false witness is a sin.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Isn’t that incredibly judgmental?

Pope Francis has been incredibly hard challenging and hard on Priests and Bishops. Instructing against particular concepts or desires has some element of judgment I suppose, but he isn’t targeting the individual as ‘bad’ just the desire as misled or disordered. He explicitly states

“I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion.”

There isn’t a lack of compassion for those people, their desire is within his scope of understanding and mercy he is simply instructing them to temper it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt from Canon lawyer Ed Peters:

First thoughts on the English version of Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia.

Some juridic issues that were widely anticipated include:

Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Francis does not approve this central assault tactic against the permanence of marriage, but neither does he clearly reiterate constant Church teaching and practice against administering the Eucharist to Catholics in irregular marriage situations. And, speaking of ‘irregular marriage’, nearly every time Francis uses that traditional phrase to describe what could more correctly be termed pseudo-marriage, he puts the word “irregular” in scare quotes, as if to imply that the designation is inappropriate and that he is using it only reluctantly.

Internal forum. Francis makes almost no commentary on the so-called “internal forum” solution. What little comment he does make on the internal forum in AL 300 is not controversial.

Canon law in general. Francis makes almost no use of canon law in Amoris. What few canonical comments he does make are not controversial.

‘Same-sex marriage’. Francis leaves no opening whatsoever that ‘same-sex marriage’ can ever be regarded as marriage. AL 251.

Some problematic points (in no special order) include:

1. Speaking of divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics, Francis writes: “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy * are lacking ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’ (Gaudium et spes*, 51).” AL fn. 329. I fear this is a serious misuse of a conciliar teaching. Gaudium et spes 51 was speaking about married couples observing periodic abstinence. Francis seems to compare that chaste sacrifice with the angst public adulterers experience when they cease engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.

1. Speaking of “Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church”, Francis writes “Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way.” AL 292. This simple phrasing requires significant elaboration: forms of union that most radically contradict the union of Christ and his Church are objectively adulterous post-divorce pseudo-marriages; forms of union that reflect this union in a partial, but good, way are all natural marriages. These two forms of union are not variations on a theme; they differ in kind, not just in degree.

1. Speaking of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes as “public and permanent adultery”, Francis writes that some post-divorce marriages can exhibit “proven fidelity, generous self-giving, [and] Christian commitment”. AL 298. Many will wonder how terms such as “proven fidelity” can apply to chronically adulterous relationships or how “Christian commitment” is shown by the public and permanent abandonment of a previous spouse.

1. In AL 297, Francis writes: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” To the contrary, it is precisely the logic of the Gospel that one can be condemned forever. CCC 1034-1035. If one meant, say, that no one can be ‘condemned for ever’ by earthly authority, one should have said so. But, of course, withholding holy Communion from those in “public and permanent adultery” is not a “condemnation” at all, so the point being made is not clear.

1. In AL 280-286, directly discussing sex education for youth, I did not see any acknowledgement, indeed not even a mention, that parents have rights in this important area. Perhaps that is to be gleaned from comments about parents made elsewhere in AL.

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/first-thoughts-on-the-english-version-of-pope-francis-amoris-laetitia/

 

[SWolf]

Pope Francis has been incredibly hard challenging and hard on Priests and Bishops. Instructing against particular concepts or desires has some element of judgment I suppose, but he isn’t targeting the individual as ‘bad’ just the desire as misled or disordered. He explicitly states

“I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion.”

There isn’t a lack of compassion for those people, their desire is within his scope of understanding and mercy he is simply instructing them to temper it.

He understands 100% that there are people who want hard fast rules and is explicitly stating that they are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.

No matter how it’s sugar coated, that’s a harsh judgment on a group of people.