Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[otjm]

What can I say? Having heard the news coverage about this document from legitimate Catholic sources, I’m disappointed. I just can’t see how someone normally denied communion would be “not excommunicated”. Is there a separate punishment besides excommunication that excludes you from receiving the Eucharist?

I hope my question is coherent enough. This is a confusing time.

The only circumstances where one would be excommunicated are those laid out in Canon law, where violation of that specific law results in excommunication.

This matter is not laid out in Canon law, so excommunication does not occur.

Two examples of an act which may incur excommunication: procuring an abortion; and ordaining a priest a bishop, without Rome’s specific approval.

 

[otjm]

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

]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.
** [/INDENT]
Interesting comment. While Fr. Z applies it to an alleged process according to the Exhortation, I have heard almost the same comment made concerning a tribunal decision of nullity; and the now non-married spouse does not and will not accept that the Church has said that they were not in a valid marriage.

“Mama, what is a decree of nullity?”
(Answer): Child, that means that the Church pretends that I am dead,".

 

[otjm]

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.

And in the real, honest world, some of them belong to the Professional Victims’ Club.

There never is a fight except that there are two combatants.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Peleaaase.
What do you expect him to do - call a Schism?
Much easier (and no scandal) to pretend its just “pastoral” , personal and no theology involved.

Do you really think so?

 

[Denise1957]

Perhaps like all men and women–including priests–Paul, too, is infallible and imperfect and was indeed being too harsh and overly judgmental–much more so than Jesus would have advised.

It should be remembered that Saint Paul, whom the Church has canonized a saint (unlike the rest of us), was personally chosen by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Paul, before he was met by Our Lord’s voice on the road to Damascus, had been a persecutor of Christians. Our Lord took that zeal, which had been seriously misdirected, and directed it instead toward God. Our Lord gave St. Paul instructions in order that he be baptized into the fold, and Saint Paul obeyed (though since he had been blinded, he offered little resistance).

Doesn’t Our Lord also expect of us also to give up our sinful ways? Just because saint Paul says things that we might find objectionable doesn’t mean that he was wrong. After all, Saint Paul endured all manner of persecution in order to preach Christ, and Christ crucified, especially among the gentiles. Saint Paul was eventually martyred. He gave his life for Our Lord. At the very least, we can try to live up to Our Lord’s expectations. He is merciful, but He is also just. After all, if there was no such thing as His justice, then what need would there be of His great mercy?

 

[roseofshannon]

Interesting comment. While Fr. Z applies it to an alleged process according to the Exhortation, I have heard almost the same comment made concerning a tribunal decision of nullity; and the now non-married spouse does not and will not accept that the Church has said that they were not in a valid marriage.

“Mama, what is a decree of nullity?”
(Answer): Child, that means that the Church pretends that I am dead,".

Tribunals and their decrees are not infallible.

My Pastor works with the tribunal and told me that it depends on who is working on your case and their leanings. He has seen some cases that were clear cut and were denied and others that were clearly frivolous and were approved.

 

[Pulvis]

When we get to the point that Authors of the Epistles are challenged due to new teachings, we may have crossed one bridge to many.

 

[irenaeus1]

Interesting comment. While Fr. Z applies it to an alleged process according to the Exhortation, I have heard almost the same comment made concerning a tribunal decision of nullity; and the now non-married spouse does not and will not accept that the Church has said that they were not in a valid marriage.

“Mama, what is a decree of nullity?”
(Answer): Child, that means that the Church pretends that I am dead,".

But that is not what a declaration of nullity is. It is not a declaration that one of the spouses is dead.

 

[OraLabora]

But that is not what a declaration of nullity is. It is not a declaration that one of the spouses is dead.

Nor is the internal forum. otjm was making the point that if you could say this about the internal forum, you could say it about a decree of nullity.

 

[otjm]

Tribunals and their decrees are not infallible.

My Pastor works with the tribunal and told me that it depends on who is working on your case and their leanings. He has seen some cases that were clear cut and were denied and others that were clearly frivolous and were approved.

And one wonders about those with clear cut cases and where their lives went from there…

 

[otjm]

But that is not what a declaration of nullity is. It is not a declaration that one of the spouses is dead.

Okay, that one went right past you. Try reading it again…

 

[St_Francis]

Nor is the internal forum. otjm was making the point that if you could say this about the internal forum, you could say it about a decree of nullity.

I don’t think one can say the same about both. Properly having one’s previous situation examined by a tribunal for nullity, which among other things allows the other spouse to present the other side of the story, is far different than someone’s explaining to a possibly untrained priest his or her own view of the situation with no evidence and no (name removed by moderator)ut from the other spouse.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t think one can say the same about both. Properly having one’s previous situation examined by a tribunal for nullity, which among other things allows the other spouse to present the other side of the story, is far different than someone’s explaining to a possibly untrained priest his or her own view of the situation with no evidence and no (name removed by moderator)ut from the other spouse.

Ok that one went right past you as well. The issue was considering the other spouse “as dead”.

Which neither the Internal Forum nor decree of nullity do no matter the differences between them.

Nor is the exhortation calling for “a possibly untrained priest” or “no evidence and (name removed by moderator)ut from the other spouse”. The Internal Forum is for when an annulment process is not possible, e.g. the other spouse cannot be located/won’t cooperate. It’s a bit like radical sanation in that sense. It’s an option for when the other person who should be part of the equation won’t play, but it is not the preferred way (I should know, before convalidation when my wife was very unenthusiastic about the idea I explored radical sanation and the Chancery Office strongly discouraged it and invited me to approach my wife again, which I did, and we had our marriage convalidated).

I have to remind again: read the document. It in NO way proposes a wide open path to communion for the divorced and re-married. The controversial parts are in fact directed at fairly exceptional cases.

 

[St_Francis]

Ok that one went right past you as well. The issue was considering the other spouse “as dead”.

Which might possibly make sense if the Internal Forum were limited to situations in which the other spouse refused to cooperate in any way, but such is not the case. Since the IF is forbidden, it is used at the discretion of some priests who are disobeying the Church.

Which neither the Internal Forum nor decree of nullity do no matter the differences between them.

Which the decree process certainly does not, while the IF most certainly can.

Nor is the exhortation calling for “a possibly untrained priest” or “no evidence and (name removed by moderator)ut from the other spouse”. The Internal Forum is for when an annulment process is not possible, e.g. the other spouse cannot be located/won’t cooperate.

Is the IF what you did? Because it has never been permitted, and in (IIRC) 1992 was specifically forbidden.

The IF is proposed by some priests for people who come to them with some sort of problem. Who is the priest? What training has he in this (forbidden) area? How does he know that what he is told is true? etc.

It’s a bit like radical sanation in that sense. It’s an option for when the other person who should be part of the equation won’t play,

Radical sanction supplies what would have been supplied by dispensation at the time the marriage was contracted. It is a far cry from using the IF solution to purport to admit a D&R person to the sacraments.

but it is not the preferred way (I should know, before convalidation when my wife was very unenthusiastic about the idea I explored radical sanation and the Chancery Office strongly discouraged it and invited me to approach my wife again, which I did, and we had our marriage convalidated).

I have to remind again: read the document. It in NO way proposes a wide open path to communion for the divorced and re-married. The controversial parts are in fact directed at fairly exceptional cases.

It seems that the Pope has proposed some route to the sacraments for those in irregular situations of whatever kind, but where has he set limits on those to whom this will apply? How do we know what sort of exceptions apply? etc

 

[pnewton]

When we get to the point that Authors of the Epistles are challenged due to new teachings, we may have crossed one bridge to many.

This has never happened. I do not know how to take this statement. No one has suggested, built or come near such a “bridge”.

 

[pnewton]

I also thought I’d post this:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, … “You will not die!”

Does this apply to anything we’re discussing here? .

No, it has no bearing that I can see. That Scripture is where we get our initial understanding of original sin.

 

[pnewton]

Then seeking a declaration of nullity should discover this to be the case.

It should.

After they have approached a priest or deacon for spiritual direction, they will soon figure out (if they really don’t know already) of their objectively sinful situation, thus making it mortally sinful now that they are aware and if they choose to remain and not ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

Perhaps, but by then the conjugal life is part of who one is, especially if they know that their first marriage was not valid. Being together without relations might be too difficult for them. Separation might prove harmful to children involved.

Notice the amount of times we have to use word like “should” and “might”. The Holy Father was trying to get us away from looking at all marriages the same way and lead us to understand each marriage base on moral principles, not category.

 

[pnewton]

Canon law would have to be changed for this to occur.

Listening to others, I was under the impression that this sort of thing has occurred, where some priests have taken this route. Canon law will never fit every circumstance, though it might be expanded to addressed more. That is the Holy Father’s point. It is like what Jesus said about tithing on mint julips (error deliberate). Canon law is something we need, but not while we neglect the weightier matters. It is a tool for the salvation of souls. Priests need more than one tool though.

 

[St_Francis]

Listening to others, I was under the impression that this sort of thing has occurred, where some priests have taken this route.

The IF solution was proposed decades ago, but it is not permitted. Those who did this did so in disobedience to the Church.

Canon law will never fit every circumstance, though it might be expanded to addressed more. That is the Holy Father’s point. It is like what Jesus said about tithing on mint julips (error deliberate). Canon law is something we need, but not while we neglect the weightier matters. It is a tool for the salvation of souls. Priests need more than one tool though.

The problem is that the IF is a private solution for a public problem.

 

[OraLabora]

Is the IF what you did? Because it has never been permitted, and in (IIRC) 1992 was specifically forbidden.

No. Neither of us were previously married. It was just an irregular situation due to having been married civilly when I was a lapsed Catholic. Instead my pastors used the approach of gradualism, which is in the exhortation (and which S. JP II also speaks of).

Radical sanction supplies what would have been supplied by dispensation at the time the marriage was contracted. It is a far cry from using the IF solution to purport to admit a D&R person to the sacraments.

I was simply pointing out that neither the IF nor radical sanation are the “ideal” approach to their respective problems, they are the routes of last resort.

It seems that the Pope has proposed some route to the sacraments for those in irregular situations of whatever kind, but where has he set limits on those to whom this will apply? How do we know what sort of exceptions apply? etc

Why is it a concern of ours? This part of the exhortation is a guideline for clergy. I trust that the Holy Father trusts his clergy.

I really don’t have a dog in this hunt, but am more than upset at the complete lack of trust that far too many people on this forum have for the Holy Father.

If you read the document it becomes more than clear that he is not addressing every D&R couple, but is requesting discernment in particular cases in the light of mercy. No more, no less. Some people on the forum have said it shakes their faith. I would then respectfully suggest that the problem is not with the exhortation but with the strength of their faith.