Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[pnewton]

There is being told something by someone, and there is actually knowing it. It depends on what you mean here by “informed”. Let’s say someone informs me it is a sin to wear clothing of mixed wool and linen.

In this case, formation of the conscience would need to go beyond a simple question and answer catechism and into the reasons why this mixture is so inherently evil, as opposed to polyester, which is simply known to be evil.

What we see here, apart from fashion, is that nothing envisioned by Pope Francis needs to be seen as a short cut. In many cases, the opposite might be true, especially if annulments become more efficient. Just establishing that a case falls outside of what should be addressed by canon law might take a while.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Well you are probably right that an informal accompanyment process is open to easy reversal with a new broom.
Who knows, its early days. Maybe the process will get formalised in some way with a bit of canon law teeth.

I guess the big question is what is the intent of the “process”? Because I am guessing that this process will always lead to the realization that no harm is done because the first marriage was null.

I simply cannot imagine anyone entering into an internal forum guided by a priest and determine a first marriage is valid…especially the way people seem to think that marriage validity is somehow be affected (effected? I struggle) by the passage of time.

We see this all the time when Cardinal Kasper gives his examples of those who need the “path” they are always termed as long time unions. Am I correct if I say the passage of time has no effect on the validity of a first marriage?

Ignoring the other party in this matter is equally grave. What about that first marriage. Was it valid? and if it was What do we do? Especially for the other party who insists they have received the graces of the sacrament.

 

[dcana]

The Pope said this should be read in light of Church teaching. Does he anywhere in the document say that D&R can be admitted to the sacraments? Or does he just say they should be guided along their individual paths?

Guided to what, exactly?

To your question: Yes. Here:

For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives…Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end…In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments…I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

Many do not see it the way I do. I don’t know why they see something else when they read the above. As you asked, “Does he anywhere in the document say that D&R can be admitted to the sacraments?” I can only assume that you have read the quote above.

Once a person knows that an act of sexual intercourse with the unmarried “partner” they are living with is grave matter, what would be some examples of “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors” whereby they would not be guilty of grave sin if they were to then have sexual relations with the person they are living with, to whom they are not married? Even if the culpability could be reduced to venial sin it would still be something from which they must cease, since it would still be sin, an offense against God. So they would still be called to live chaste lives.

 

[dcana]

Anybody?

 

[_Abyssinia]

REGISTER EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Burke says a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, ‘by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.’

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/#ixzz45YVOzt3m

 

[dcana]

I thought I’d post this. It is from Fr. Z’s blog, from his post, “A sad, sobering reaction to #AmorisLaetitia”:

At a blog called Dymphna’s Road (unusual name, but blogs often have unusual – and intriguing – names), I saw something that encapsulates what I fear is going to happen in the wake of the Post-Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.**A FUTURE CONVERSATION?

** **Mama, what does pastoral mean?

** **It means, Child, that when your father and his new “wife” go to church the priest has to pretend that I’m dead.
** There it is. Even if this is fictional, it’s enough to break your heart because it stabs directly into what we now face …. pastorally.

Again, Amoris laetitia does not change Catholic doctrine… not if you read it carefully. It does *not *say what the fictional conversation above says. BUT … there are those who will a) not read it carefully and who will b) read it carefully and then lie about what is says in order to do whatever the hell they want and call it “pastoral”.

Let libs deny that. Just go ahead and lie.

Couple the confusion that can be caused by lack of clarity and a dash of insinuation with the idiocy of the MSM and catholic sources on the liberal Left and we are going to see division and confusion grow and metastasize.

We really need our bishops and priests to step up now and preach sound teaching, TRUE Catholic doctrine, with great clarity and great charity.

 

[JosieN]

I thought I’d post this. It is from Fr. Z’s blog, from his post, “A sad, sobering reaction to #AmorisLaetitia”:

At a blog called Dymphna’s Road (unusual name, but blogs often have unusual – and intriguing – names), I saw something that encapsulates what I fear is going to happen in the wake of the Post-Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.**A FUTURE CONVERSATION?

** Mama, what does pastoral mean?

It means, Child, that when your father and his new “wife” go to church the priest has to pretend that I’m dead.
There it is. Even if this is fictional, it’s enough to break your heart because it stabs directly into what we now face …. pastorally.

Again, Amoris laetitia does not change Catholic doctrine… not if you read it carefully. It does *not *say what the fictional conversation above says. BUT … there are those who will a) not read it carefully and who will b) read it carefully and then lie about what is says in order to do whatever the hell they want and call it “pastoral”.

Let libs deny that. Just go ahead and lie.

Couple the confusion that can be caused by lack of clarity and a dash of insinuation with the idiocy of the MSM and catholic sources on the liberal Left and we are going to see division and confusion grow and metastasize.

We really need our bishops and priests to step up now and preach sound teaching, TRUE Catholic doctrine, with great clarity and great charity.

 

[dcana]

I also thought I’d post this:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die!”

Does this apply to anything we’re discussing here? I don’t know for sure. I’ll let everyone decide for themselves. I’m just throwing it out there.

 

[OraLabora]

dcana:

**Mama, what does pastoral mean?

** **It means, Child, that when your father and his new “wife” go to church the priest has to pretend that I’m dead.
** [/INDENT]There it is. Even if this is fictional, it’s enough to break your heart because it stabs directly into what we now face …. pastorally.

More hyperbole. The chapter of the document dealing with these situations is aimed at pastors to determine how to handle some specific, difficult cases. Nowhere does it come close to suggesting what this fictional conversation says.

That some people may elect to do whatever they want has got little to do with the document. These folks have probably been thumbing their noses at Church law for some time already.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I challenge anyone to read paragraph 298 and then its corresponding footnote f(329) and tell me it isn’t troubling. He is using a quotation from a document pertaining to the need for sex in a regular valid marriage to justify continuation of sexual relations in an irregular marriage?

Familiaris Consortio is the document he quoted.

 

[dcana]

More hyperbole. The chapter of the document dealing with these situations is aimed at pastors to determine how to handle some specific, difficult cases. Nowhere does it come close to suggesting what this fictional conversation says.

That some people may elect to do whatever they want has got little to do with the document. These folks have probably been thumbing their noses at Church law for some time already.

Again, Amoris laetitia does not change Catholic doctrine… not if you read it carefully. **It does *not ***say what the fictional conversation above says. BUT … there are those who will a) not read it carefully and who will b) read it carefully and then lie about what is says in order to do whatever the hell they want and call it “pastoral”.

my emphasis

 

[OraLabora]

Again, Amoris laetitia does not change Catholic doctrine… not if you read it carefully. **It does *not ***say what the fictional conversation above says. BUT … there are those who will a) not read it carefully and who will b) read it carefully and then lie about what is says in order to do whatever the hell they want and call it “pastoral”.

my emphasis

So? Humanae Vitae was an encyclical that couldn’t have been more clear about artificial birth control, and many Catholic couples still choose to ignore it.

It’s human nature.

 

[Pug]

A couple who are in an irregular arrangement who have abstained from communion are not abstaining by chance. The mere fact that they are following the practice of abstaining demonstrates enough evidence of acceptance of authority.

Also Francis implies that assent to the teachings of the Church for those couples who are on the “Path”.

.300
For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”. 338 These attitudes are essen tial for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings,

I think I have crossed wires maybe? I was responding to a post where you commented

Especially regarding the fact that a soul must adhere to the truth once it is know. I believe this is contradicted by the notion that an irregular union can remain sexually active even after they have been informed they are not supposed to.

This seems to envision people currently having relations and whether they will stop relations when they find out some information. So I meant my remark in that context, that of terminating ongoing relations.

But, to address a person/couple who has been abstaining all this time and not receiving communion because the priest told them not to, then yes, it is likely that at least one of them already acknowledges authority in the form of the priest. The other member of the couple might or might not have agreed to the abstinence and hence may or may not acknowledge the authority. But I do know how I used to operate, and I’m probably not the only one in existence. I might well have agreed to abstain for a while in order to obtain something, like to get the priest to agree to do something, even though I didn’t have any acknowledgement of the Church’s true moral authority, because I am a very poor liar, so to pass I would have had to actually do it.

Love for the Church and her teaching is a marvelous gift to have. It would be helpful in any sort of discernment situation for a Catholic.

 

[deaconjohnO]

More hyperbole. The chapter of the document dealing with these situations is aimed at pastors to determine how to handle some specific, difficult cases. Nowhere does it come close to suggesting what this fictional conversation says.

That some people may elect to do whatever they want has got little to do with the document. These folks have probably been thumbing their noses at Church law for some time already.

Its a crass fictional situation that points out a glaring pastoral omission.

I know two women who used their canonically given right to present evidence to the tribunal. THeir voices were heard. With the internal form we are called to not throw rocks at the divorced and civilly remarried but It’s ok to kick their abandoned wives to the curb.

It seems as though those cast aside are not important.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I think I have crossed wires maybe? I was responding to a post where you commented

This seems to envision people currently having relations and whether they will stop relations when they find out some information. So I meant my remark in that context, that of terminating ongoing relations.

But, to address a person/couple who has been abstaining all this time and not receiving communion because the priest told them not to, then yes, it is likely that at least one of them already acknowledges authority in the form of the priest. The other member of the couple might or might not have agreed to the abstinence and hence may or may not acknowledge the authority. But I do know how I used to operate, and I’m probably not the only one in existence. I might well have agreed to abstain for a while in order to obtain something, like to get the priest to agree to do something, even though I didn’t have any acknowledgement of the Church’s true moral authority, because I am a very poor liar, so to pass I would have had to actually do it.

Love for the Church and her teaching is a marvelous gift to have. It would be helpful in any sort of discernment situation for a Catholic.

The internal form removes the right of the abandoned spouse to petition. Thus erasing John Paul II’s address to the Roman Rota in 1996. I am not sure how people can say that this exhortation doesn’t change formalities.

 

[Pug]

In this case, formation of the conscience would need to go beyond a simple question and answer catechism and into the reasons why this mixture is so inherently evil, as opposed to polyester, which is simply known to be evil.

What we see here, apart from fashion, is that nothing envisioned by Pope Francis needs to be seen as a short cut. In many cases, the opposite might be true, especially if annulments become more efficient. Just establishing that a case falls outside of what should be addressed by canon law might take a while.

RE: polyester

Handy-dandy answer: because the bible tells me so (Dt 22:11) (But you probably already knew that…)

From what I’ve read so far, I agree with you. It doesn’t sound like short cuts are meant by our Pope. Being who I am, I want a lovely giant flow chart detailing all the cases and sub-clauses, etc., so that it is all worked out in an orderly, convenient manner. But that doesn’t help real people (except me and my silly mind). Real people need someone knowledgeable to sit down with them on as many occasions as necessary and work it through slowly with them until they understand their situation, in a personalized way.

 

[deaconjohnO]

RE: polyester

Handy-dandy answer: because the bible tells me so (Dt 22:11) (But you probably already knew that…)

From what I’ve read so far, I agree with you. It doesn’t sound like short cuts are meant by our Pope. Being who I am, I want a lovely giant flow chart detailing all the cases and sub-clauses, etc., so that it is all worked out in an orderly, convenient manner. But that doesn’t help real people (except me and my silly mind). Real people need someone knowledgeable to sit down with them on as many occasions as necessary and work it through slowly with them until they understand their situation, in a personalized way.

I just realized that the internal form can never lead to declaration of a previous marriage null with out eventually leading to the tribunal. To do so would violate canon law. In particular the right to defense of the bond. Additionally the internal path for those who have been denied annulment would always have to lead the individuals to appreciation and understanding of the Church’s teaching…meaning the process could never come to an end that allows persistence in irregularity. They could die during the process and still be OK but the only way the process could end during their earthly life would to abide with grace in the law of God by purpose of firm amendment and grace received from the sacrament while living in countenene of God’s law. . The law that God has placed the #7 in front of in his list of commandments. I’m quite certain this can be adhered to while being pastoral.

 

[TMC]

Sin affects all. And ambiguity or a wink and a nod when dealing with marriage is one of the reasons our world is defeating our church in the area of one of its own sacraments. The body of Christ cannot have a disease and it not affect you. The wages of sin is death. If you think that just because that sin is not committed by you that your marriage and family are not affected and infected then maybe you can’t see the Forrest for the trees.

I think that I am willing to trust my fellow Catholics, their pastors and the bishops to sort out the resolution of their sins. I will tend to my own.

 

[dcana]

It seems like this “logic” can be applied to any mortally sinful behavior. Is artificial contraception next? Could there not be “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors” whereby the use of artificial contraception is no longer mortally sinful? Does everybody who want to use them need to talk to their pastor and be “accompanied” in “discernment” to discover if their use is really seriously sinful in their particular case?

How about murder? Adultery when the married couple are still living together?

Where does it end?

How about these things:

“fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, sects, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.”

And yet Paul had this to say: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Poor Paul! (Poor Sacred Scripture!) He was not merciful or compassionate. He was throwing stones at peoples’ lives and hiding behind Church teachings, with a closed heart.

He was also judging peoples’ lives:

Read: "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

And then Paul said this regarding pagans!

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…

If the pagans are without excuse, how are we, “on whom the kingdom of God is come” with excuse?

Paul heartlessly throwing more stones at people:

Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

• 1 Peter 4:17-18

I am certainly no “prophet” but I firmly believe that “the time has [fully and definitively] come for judgment to begin with the household of God.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think that I am willing to trust my fellow Catholics, their pastors and the bishops to sort out the resolution of their sins. I will tend to my own.

You must live in a nice place church wise… Some of us are not so lucky.

Around here it would seem the priests are quite happy the church " is coming around". To thier theology. Even if it can be argued ( and I’m not sure it can) that She isn’t.