Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[roseofshannon]

I’m amazed that people here don’t realize that priests have been making these “calls” for years.
I asked if people go to communion after remarriage outside of the Church years ago, and was told “it happens all the time”. I’ve never once seen a priest tell anyone to stop receiving. Well, I take that back…only once. Because the woman refused to ask her fiance to attempt an annulment. She herself had one granted, but said she’d never put her fiance through that. So they got married at a Baptist church, and she’s now taking communion at a parish where no one knows her. Nothing changed.
I think Pope Francis wants to get rid of this attitude of “they’re going to do it anyway…” by suggesting that Pastors be more pastoral and stop shrugging it off or writing people off as lost causes.
What is that so horrible? Don’t we WANT people to get their marriages annulled?
Don’t we want people to care about the Eucharist?
Why does any Catholic have a “too bad so sad” attitude?

This whole conversation really slams the door on so many people. Almost gleefully so. Why should people try? Seems like Catholics in the US think everyone should just shut up and sit down.

“Year of Mercy”.
Right. Seems U.S. Catholics wish it were not.

I don’t for a minute believe the Pope is saying anything that;s changing doctrine.
Everyone wants to go back to the way things were decades ago.
remember this: if that happened, none of us would be allowed to even have or voice an opinion. We’d all be told to find another parish. I don’t remember anyone in my parents’ day have the temerity to tell a priest or a Bishop that he is wrong. And if they did, they’d only do it once.

I can understand why it may appear this way, but I can assure you that in many cases (including mine) this is not the intention.

It seems as if what you are saying is that since everybody is doing it we should just go along with it. This attitude could be applied to so many sins such as pre-marital sex, contraception, acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Yes, in the US many priests have been in error and given bad counsel to souls and they will stand in judgement for that. It is not merciful to “accompany” someone on the path to Hell because you want to be nice and be liked and not make waves.

Jesus wasn’t nice at all about this. He said that Moses was too nice and made exceptions because of the hardness of peoples hearts, but what Jesus said was:

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt:19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

And those are just the words of Jesus. (Just…hehe) But seriously, there are so many more passages throughout Scripture.

It’s indisputable. Anyone who chooses to follow Jesus really can’t deny what he has made perfectly clear.

John 8:6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

So why should priests or anyone stand firm in the truth?

Is it because we are judgmental and mean?

NO…it is because we LOVE SOULS AND DON’T WANT ANY HARM TO COME TO THEM!!!

Jesus also said, “Don’t be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell.” Matt 10:28

Our greatest desire is that all members of our parish can be together in eternal joy in Heaven!

We don’t want anything to jeopardize that because WE LOVE EACH AND EVERY SOUL and want to be with them forever!

I offer up all my sufferings for this purpose alone. It is my constant prayer.

He wants us to repent, deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and enter through the narrow gate.

Jesus loves each one of us so very much and wants to bestow His unfathomable mercy upon us, especially in this Year of Mercy.

But he won’t force it on you. He can’t give you His mercy if you don’t repent. The only sin that can’t be forgiven, is the one for which we don’t ask forgiveness and repent.

CCC136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Peace be with you and God Bless!

 

[Murmurs]

I can understand why it may appear this way, but I can assure you that in many cases (including mine) this is not the intention.

It seems as if what you are saying is that since everybody is doing it we should just go along with it. This attitude could be applied to so many sins such as pre-marital sex, contraception, acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Yes, in the US many priests have been in error and given bad counsel to souls and they will stand in judgement for that. It is not merciful to “accompany” someone on the path to Hell because you want to be nice and be liked and not make waves.

Jesus wasn’t nice at all about this. He said that Moses was too nice and made exceptions because of the hardness of peoples hearts, but what Jesus said was:

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt:19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

And those are just the words of Jesus. (Just…hehe) But seriously, there are so many more passages throughout Scripture.

It’s indisputable. Anyone who chooses to follow Jesus really can’t deny what he has made perfectly clear.

John 8:6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

So why should priests or anyone stand firm in the truth?

Is it because we are judgmental and mean?

NO…it is because we LOVE SOULS AND DON’T WANT ANY HARM TO COME TO THEM!!!

Jesus also said, “Don’t be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell.” Matt 10:28

Our greatest desire is that all members of our parish can be together in eternal joy in Heaven!

We don’t want anything to jeopardize that because WE LOVE EACH AND EVERY SOUL and want to be them forever!

I offer up all my sufferings for this purpose alone. It is my constant prayer.

He wants us to repent, deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and enter through the narrow gate.

Jesus loves each one of us so very much and wants to bestow His unfathomable mercy upon us, especially in this Year of Mercy.

But he won’t force it on you. He can’t give you His mercy if you don’t repent. The only sin that can’t be forgiven, is the one for which we don’t ask forgiveness and repent.

CCC136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Peace be with you and God Bless!

Interesting thread, all

I think there is something of an subjective difference in the reality between a sin one entirely chooses (maybe, to shoot a man in cold blood just on the basis of his wearing a loud tie), and a sin - equally grievous perhaps - but which one commits in the pursuit of earthly happiness and might be said from one perspective to be borne of selfishness rather than directly evil intent.

Now we might (not incorrectly) argue that to place our earthly happiness (like finding a new husband or wife, after divorcing our old spouse) ahead of our ultimate Heavenly one, is a) short-sighted and b) a less-than-Catholic attitude to both life on Earth and to the Sacraments.

But I think what pianistclare is trying to suggest isn’t that we should have a live-and-let-live attitude to any kind of sin (and regardless, divorce is by definition not a happy thing we should be wishing on anyone anyway) - but we should be moving (figuratively) heaven and earth to find legitimate ways to encourage people to return to - or to turn for the first time - the embrace of the Church.

The road to Hell may well be paved with good intentions but in the ultimate Judgement our good intentions do actually weigh heavily. No one can countenance sin - finding appropriate ways to help people move away from it is surely one of the duties of every Catholic. What is certainly not (and I’m not implicating you personally here, roseofshannon!), is passing stern judgement on those around us. This, surely, is the ‘clear statement’ which Pope Francis has made.

 

[roseofshannon]

Interesting thread, all

But I think what pianistclare

 

[fin]

Agreed. Sadly many Catholics these days are more concerned about being “nice” and being liked, rather than being concerned about their eternal salvation, and that includes prelates. They would rather not be called bigot, intolerant, judgmental, than follow our Lord.

Another excellent quote from Fr. Gerald Murray (HT to reader’s transcript):

I hide behind the teaching of the Lord because I want to be protected from evil influences of the devil and erroneous teachings. I want to know what the Church expects (of) me. So in that that sense you can say the expression ‘I find my nest or my home in the teaching of the Church.’

On the other hand, I’m not using the teaching of the Church as an excuse to get back at people who are sinning – I’m offering them the greatest charity in the world which is the knowledge of what God wants them to do in life.

wdtprs.com/blog/2016/04/ewtn-robert-royal-and-fr-gerald-murray-on-amorislaetitia/#comments

Many priests make allowances for anything and call it mercy, when really it’s a lack of backbone, fear of not being liked and most of all a missed opportunity to educate and draw people to holiness and ultimately sainthood.

 

[Murmurs]

Yes, I may have misunderstood.

I do think however that people on this thread are in agreement on finding legitimate ways to help people return, but are very wary of any suggestion that would seem to make allowance for illegitimate ways.

I think so many are discouraged by the lack of catechesis and anything goes laxity which is profaning the real presence of our Lord. Many priests make allowances for anything and call it mercy, when really it’s a lack of backbone, fear of not being liked and most of all a missed opportunity to educate and draw people to holiness and ultimately sainthood.

I know I personally fear that the “Spirit of AL” will be used as an excuse for anything just as the “Spirit of Vatican II” was abused. So instead of improved catechesis it will just be more of the same.

Oh I can agree with that!

I think also that having a firm delineation of what is and isn’t appropriate, shoring up, as it were, the unchanging teaching of the Church regarding the sacrament of marriage, is helpful in general terms. As we all know there are plenty of people who might disagree with her teaching on the subject, but I think it is impossible to have our cake and eat it, vis. affirm the sacredness of marriage as between a man and a woman lasting until death, and then have an embracing but ultimately rather fudging statement leaving it to individual discretion. I think it is wrong to make windows into men’s souls - but we are in a position, on this subject, to clearly state what the soul should be looking like…

 

[roseofshannon]

Interesting thread, all

I think there is something of an subjective difference in the reality between a sin one entirely chooses (maybe, to shoot a man in cold blood just on the basis of his wearing a loud tie)…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Amoris Laetitia, it is critical to understand, is not an end point – it, along with Mitis Judex Dominus Iesus, is a beginning point.

The issues that have been considered by the synods are now entrusted, as the Holy Father says, to the global theological community and to the College of Bishops diffused throughout the world, and notably in the national and regional Conferences of Bishops. From Amoris Laetitia,
*2. The Synod process allowed for an examination of the situation of families in today’s world, and thus for a broader vision and a renewed awareness of the importance of marriage and the family. The complexity of the issues that arose revealed the need for continued open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity…

From paragraph 3: Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.*

 

[otjm]

How do you think a saint would respond in those scenarios?

That is an interesting question.

The Church does not teach that all marriages are valid; rather, the Church holds that all marriages (which follow form) are presumed valid.

Looking at the scenarios - and I am not presuming that A is the one deciding that the evidence is sufficient - if someone, either an advocate or the pastor who assists A in assembling the evidence, were to say that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the marriage was not valid, but A cannot obtain a decree of nullity in the scenarios I outlined, then where is A?

What posters do not address is the case, which should be rare, in which the first marriage is not valid but in which A is unable to obtain a decree of nullity (as outlined in my questions).

How would you answer it?

 

[Murmurs]

Hmmmm…isn’t there a canon law about illicit loud ties???

Well there should be, for certain. I’ll ask my priest if he can pass the message up

 

[roseofshannon]

That is an interesting question.

The Church does not teach that all marriages are valid; rather, the Church holds that all marriages (which follow form) are presumed valid.

Looking at the scenarios - and I am not presuming that A is the one deciding that the evidence is sufficient - if someone, either an advocate or the pastor who assists A in assembling the evidence, were to say that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the marriage was not valid, but A cannot obtain a decree of nullity in the scenarios I outlined, then where is A?

What posters do not address is the case, which should be rare, in which the first marriage is not valid but in which A is unable to obtain a decree of nullity (as outlined in my questions).

How would you answer it?

This would be an incredibly frustrating and difficult situation to be sure! Standing firm in upholding the proper reception of the Eucharist doesn’t mean that we can’t sympathize with these complicated and problematic situations.

I’m no theologian but in my reading of the saints what I imagine their response to a situation like this would be:

A. First, accept this as a special cross which God has bestowed upon them to grow in a particular virtue. Most of the saints were inflicted with very difficult obstacles in trying to live out their particular vocation, and very often the obstacles came from within the Church. They knew they were being thwarted or persecuted by the Church itself just as Jesus was and united it to his sufferings. They saw it as a gift from God to help them grow in patience, humility, fortitude and love. Keep in mind that satan wants to make them give up and let that be a further incentive not to!

B. If you are the pastor, educate. If you are the parishoner, get educated. Yes, in the past or in some of the more conservative countries (perhaps Africa or the Phillipines?) or some cantankerous priests may simply say, “No, it can’t be done,” without fully explaining the why’s behind the rules. It’s important that they are explained in a loving and sympathetic way which highlights the scriptures, the catechism and other sources so the richness of the truth can be fully understood. Rather than turn people away, this can actually be a way to light hearts on fire and challenge them to greater holiness than an easier path might bring.

C. Do whatever is necessary to overcome the obstacles. Write to superiors all the way up to the Pope. Seek out counsel from Canon lawyers. Find ways to raise the funds or waive the funds necessary in certain cases. Seek an annulment from a different tribunal if one is not available in your country. Take the case to the Roman Rota. Wading through toilsome red tape is a part of so many of the stories of the saints, including St. Francis, St. Therese, St. Mary MacKillop, St. Joan of Arc…etc.

D. Pray. Ask for the peace that passes all understanding. Tell Jesus you will still love and trust him regardless of the outcome. Give up sex or separate from your spouse if necessary (I know, I know, it’s pretty drastic, but this is our eternal soul we are talking about here. This isn’t our home and life here is very short. Jesus is the pearl of great price and worth giving up everything for.) Offer up your suffering as penance for your sins and the sins of all the world. Save souls. Trust that God will find a way and persevere. Remember that the holy men and women of the Old Testament had to wait for a thousand years or more for the coming of Christ. Offer it up for souls in Purgatory who are waiting and waiting. Go to adoration. Go to Mass and receive a blessing. Make friends in the Parish and take part in service and activities that don’t require you to teach or preach at this time. Share your situation with others—you are a wonderful example of holiness to the rest of the community!!!

I’m hoping that this sort of thing is what Dear Pope Francis had in mind rather than finding loopholes. It’s strange he said he doesn’t remember the footnote that is so confusing and problematic.

 

[JosieN]

That is an interesting question.

The Church does not teach that all marriages are valid; rather, the Church holds that all marriages (which follow form) are presumed valid.

Looking at the scenarios - and I am not presuming that A is the one deciding that the evidence is sufficient - if someone, either an advocate or the pastor who assists A in assembling the evidence, were to say that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the marriage was not valid, but A cannot obtain a decree of nullity in the scenarios I outlined, then where is A?

What posters do not address is the case, which should be rare, in which the first marriage is not valid but in which A is unable to obtain a decree of nullity (as outlined in my questions).

How would you answer it?

Trust God. Maybe it is His Will. Accept it as a cross for your salvation.There are worse situations and far more difficult places in life to be.

What if God knows something you don’t. He knows all, even the future. Maybe it is part of His plan for you. People want to solve all their problems the way they see it. God may not see it your way. He wants you in heaven with Him. This life is a way to earn graces for heaven, but you cannot do it without Jesus Christ at your side, so pray to the Sacred Heart of Jesus everyday. When you enter heaven because of your faith and trust in Him, and because of your difficult journey in life you will be glad you did not choose the easy way.

That is how I would answer your question.

 

[dans0622]

The notion that the same 2 additional conditions needed to make grave matter (in this case adultery or fornication) mortal sin apply to those in irregular (not just D & R) marriages. It seems to me it takes away from all this silly notion about “states” of mortal sin and brings sin back to what it really is: a personal act contrary to God’s will, that may be grave, and if grave, may or may not be mortally culpable depending on circumstances.

Just like any other sin really. No different from what the CCC says about masturbation, and force of habit, affective immaturity, etc.

The notion that some people are in sinful state is somewhat laughable because the reality is we all are sinners, so all are living in a way contrary to the will of God to some extent or another.

Another change in discipline is the notion that not all objectively adulterous irregular marriages are equal in gravity. The CCC itself notes, for instance, that violence against parents is objectively worse than violence against a stranger (CCC 1858). To treat the adultery of a man recently divorced so he can run off and marry his secretary equivalent to that of a woman who has been remarried for years after escaping a violent husband who molested her children is so blatantly unjust, it just makes the Catholic Church fit all the media stereotypes about an intransigent, ossified and outdated institution.

This is, I think, what Pope Francis is trying to address in AL and yes, AL does make the distinction between the recently divorced and remarried vs long-term stable second unions entered into by persons who were not morally culpable for the civil divorce of the fist union. It is at least in my view a change in discipline, of application of doctrine. In fact it is simply rendering uniform the (subjective I will admit) criteria for culpability of all sin by not creating some special categories that put people between a rock and a hard place.
…

Thanks for the response. It seems to me that these sorts of distinctions and various “applications of doctrine” based on particular circumstances have been going on for quite a while…I’m not that old but at least for as long as I’ve been alive. Is it uniform throughout the Church? No. I won’t be holding my breath for that to happen, though.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, I am confused… you say that is what you said then say that it is not explicit???

I said the fact that the D & R cannot receive communion is not explicit. The only thing that is explicit directly concerning the D & R is that the first union, if valid, is an impediment to a second union.

The only thing explicit about who can receive communion is that those conscious of grave sin must first seek sacramental confession.

 

[dans0622]

Given that, how do you respond to the following?

A prepares a presentation to the Tribunal, and on the face of it it appears that the first marriage was not valid; however, do to requests from the Tribunal for more information, which A is not able to produce, the case expires.

A approaches the parish priest to start the process of presenting the marriage to the Tribunal, but the priest refuses to present it, on the basis that according to the priest, the Tribunal is abusive (in a recent thread, a poster stated that their parish priest refused to present cases, allegedly because “all cases were granted”).

A believes they have a case, and that is confirmed by the pastor, but the diocese does not have a Tribunal (this is the case in some countries, to some extent).

A presents a case, which on the face of it appears that the first marriage was not valid; but the Tribunal is so back logged that the case gets lost.

A presents a case which appears on the face of it that the first marriage is not valid, but the Tribunal consists of 3 members, two of whom believe that the appropriate section of Canon law is either invalid, or demand an impossible level of proof (such that they will never grant a decree of nullity under that provision).

You did not present this post to me but I’ll respond anyway. In all these cases, the person should ask for the help of a competent canon lawyer, who might even assist free of charge.

1. The person should request that the case proceed to a decision. If the “request for more information” is a gentler way of saying “there is no way this case, as it stands, would ever receive an ‘affirmative’ Sentence”, then maybe the person’s view of the matter is incorrect.
2. The person should inform the Tribunal of the position of that priest and, if no one is available to assist on the parish level, present the case him/herself (as is his/her right).
3. That’s a truly problematic situation. If there is another diocese which has a Tribunal is competent to hear the case, approach that one. If not, write to the Signatura for assistance and direction.
4. Yes, people in Tribunals can make mistakes. They can also get behind in their work. “Losing a case” (if you mean that literally) is rather extreme but…If there was such an occurrence, the person would have to start over but should be given a place in the process where he/she would have been if the case had not been lost.
5. If the person thinks that he is not receiving a fair hearing, he can request a change of Judge. If there are actually Judges who think a part of canon law is “invalid” or are not reasonably applying standards of proof, then the Diocesan Bishop and Signatura should be informed. If none of this has any effect, there may be another Tribunal which can be approached.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

Thanks for the response. It seems to me that these sorts of distinctions and various “applications of doctrine” based on particular circumstances have been going on for quite a while…I’m not that old but at least for as long as I’ve been alive. Is it uniform throughout the Church? No. I won’t be holding my breath for that to happen, though.

Dan

Well I’m 57 and have been active in the Church (after a long time outside of it, I am a cradle Catholic) for the past 19 years, and especially in the past 14 since entering the oblate program at the local abbey. I think the messiness in the Church is reflective of the messiness of human nature in general. In French we have a saying “là où il y a l’homme, il y a l’hommerie”. It doesn’t translate exactly but roughly means “where you find Man, you find Man’s foibles”.

I know it bothers a lot of people but frankly it stopped bothering me long ago as I have learned to focus mostly on my own, rather imperfect and fitful, conversion. As my excellent confessor once said “God expects the effort, but does not demand perfection”.

I think those getting their knickers in a knot over AL are overreacting too quickly and it needs more thoughtful analysis by the hierarchy. As Fr. Ruggero suggests it’s a beginning, not an end. To respond to another poster, that’s why I think certain clergy are being disloyal to the Holy Father by quickly and publicly, if ever so subtly (and some not so subtly) reacting without, it would appear at least, prayerful (and preferably private) reflection first. I wonder if it isn’t more than just “Church teaching” that they are trying to defend. I remember when I returned to the Church after a long time outside of saying “never”, my ego took a big beating at having to eat humble pie that I had been wrong for 22 years.

While dogma and doctrine have been fairly uniform over time, “Church teaching” has certainly evolved. Just look, for example, at all the brouhaha over the role of the Jewish people in salvation history and how it is presented to us both pre- and post-Vatican II. It’s still the stuff of uber-traditionalist and sedevacantist angst 50 years on, and I suspect the same mentality is why we are seeing so much hand-wringing over AL.

The storm will eventually die down, and a handful of inflexibles will coalesce somewhere with other sectarians within the Church, and the clergy and laity will continue to imperfectly and unevenly try to adapt to the circumstances of their world with AL to at least back them up in realizing that the status quo is not the acceptable response to the thorny problems of our time. And the Church will continue to be, if somewhat battered, a safe ship in the very rough seas of our time.

 

[St_Francis]

Well I’m 57 and have been active in the Church (after a long time outside of it, I am a cradle Catholic) for the past 19 years, and especially in the past 14 since entering the oblate program at the local abbey. I think the messiness in the Church is reflective of the messiness of human nature in general. In French we have a saying “là où il y a l’homme, il y a l’hommerie”. It doesn’t translate exactly but roughly means “where you find Man, you find Man’s foibles”.

I know it bothers a lot of people but frankly it stopped bothering me long ago as I have learned to focus mostly on my own, rather imperfect and fitful, conversion. As my excellent confessor once said “God expects the effort, but does not demand perfection”.

I think those getting their knickers in a knot over AL are overreacting too quickly and it needs more thoughtful analysis by the hierarchy. As Fr. Ruggero suggests it’s a beginning, not an end. To respond to another poster, that’s why I think certain clergy are being disloyal to the Holy Father by quickly and publicly, if ever so subtly (and some not so subtly) reacting without, it would appear at least, prayerful (and preferably private) reflection first. I wonder if it isn’t more than just “Church teaching” that they are trying to defend. I remember when I returned to the Church after a long time outside of saying “never”, my ego took a big beating at having to eat humble pie that I had been wrong for 22 years.

While dogma and doctrine have been fairly uniform over time, “Church teaching” has certainly evolved. Just look, for example, at all the brouhaha over the role of the Jewish people in salvation history and how it is presented to us both pre- and post-Vatican II. It’s still the stuff of uber-traditionalist and sedevacantist angst 50 years on, and I suspect the same mentality is why we are seeing so much hand-wringing over AL.

The storm will eventually die down, and a handful of inflexibles will coalesce somewhere with other sectarians within the Church, and the clergy and laity will continue to imperfectly and unevenly try to adapt to the circumstances of their world with AL to at least back them up in realizing that the status quo is not the acceptable response to the thorny problems of our time. And the Church will continue to be, if somewhat battered, a safe ship in the very rough seas of our time.

I do not know the meaning or intention of a footnote–which, istm, a footnote in an exhortation cannot possibly be a major statement on doctrine or discipline–I am merely defending the current Church teaching/regulation.

The problem I have with the IFS is that if the teachings of the Church are *real, *then the IFS poses a real danger to the souls of those involved.

For example, I knew a woman who nearly died in the operating table because she did not mention some herbal remedies she had been taking. It did not occur to her that they were medically important; they were just herbs, after all. She did not intend to mislead or deceive: she made an innocent mistake.

The fact that she made an innocent mistake did not protect her from the *real *medication conflict that existed.

In the same way, while the Eucharist is indeed medicine, it can, like most meds, be poison under certain circumstances: partaking unworthily can result in an eternity in Hell.

Those who deceive priests to get what they want to hear are quite obviously in danger. But if a priest advises evilly, pridefully, out of a desire for human respect *then he takes upon himself the consequences of the decision. *

What people seem sometimes to miss in these discussions is the utter reality of all this which we are supposed to believe in as Catholics.

 

[Ender]

I said the fact that the D & R cannot receive communion is not explicit.

It is not explicit for any sin; that really doesn’t mean anything. The criteria for receiving are set forth; if you meet the criteria you may receive, if you don’t you may not. I doubt that it’s explicitly set forth that serial murderers may not receive. You may (should) not receive if conscious of having committed a grave sin that has not been absolved. Those who have contracted a second marriage where the first marriage has not been declared invalid commit adultery unless they remain continent. Adultery is a grave sin, and in this case cannot be absolved because the partners lack contrition, which includes the intention of not repeating the sin. Therefore they may not receive. We can surely connect the dots without having to have everything spelled out on a list.

The only thing that is explicit directly concerning the D & R is that the first union, if valid, is an impediment to a second union.

It is quite the impediment, and this one was spelled out, by Christ himself no less.

The only thing explicit about who can receive communion is that those conscious of grave sin must first seek sacramental confession.

It is also explicitly spelled out that the minister of communion is obligated not to distribute to those who “obstinately persist in manifest, grave sin.”

Ender

 

[pianistclare]

I can understand why it may appear this way, but I can assure you that in many cases (including mine) this is not the intention.

It seems as if what you are saying is that since everybody is doing it we should just go along with it. This attitude could be applied to so many sins such as pre-marital sex, contraception, acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Yes, in the US many priests have been in error and given bad counsel to souls and they will stand in judgement for that. It is not merciful to “accompany” someone on the path to Hell because you want to be nice and be liked and not make waves.

Jesus wasn’t nice at all about this. He said that Moses was too nice and made exceptions because of the hardness of peoples hearts, but what Jesus said was:

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt:19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

And those are just the words of Jesus. (Just…hehe) But seriously, there are so many more passages throughout Scripture.

It’s indisputable. Anyone who chooses to follow Jesus really can’t deny what he has made perfectly clear.

John 8:6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

So why should priests or anyone stand firm in the truth?

Is it because we are judgmental and mean?

NO…it is because we LOVE SOULS AND DON’T WANT ANY HARM TO COME TO THEM!!!

Jesus also said, “Don’t be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell.” Matt 10:28

Our greatest desire is that all members of our parish can be together in eternal joy in Heaven!

We don’t want anything to jeopardize that because WE LOVE EACH AND EVERY SOUL and want to be with them forever!

I offer up all my sufferings for this purpose alone. It is my constant prayer.

He wants us to repent, deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and enter through the narrow gate.

Jesus loves each one of us so very much and wants to bestow His unfathomable mercy upon us, especially in this Year of Mercy.

But he won’t force it on you. He can’t give you His mercy if you don’t repent. The only sin that can’t be forgiven, is the one for which we don’t ask forgiveness and repent.

CCC136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Peace be with you and God Bless!

Certainly not. I’m pointing that obstinate applies to those who insist on damning people,

 

[OraLabora]

It is quite the impediment, and this one was spelled out, by Christ himself no less.

Which I am most certainly not arguing against.

 

[irenaeus1]

It seems to me it takes away from all this silly notion about “states” of mortal sin and brings sin back to what it really is: a personal act contrary to God’s will, that may be grave, and if grave, may or may not be mortally culpable depending on circumstances.

"… silly notion about ‘states’ of mortal sin… "

The notion that some people are in sinful state is somewhat laughable because the reality is we all are sinners, so all are living in a way contrary to the will of God to some extent or another.

“… laughable…”

Church teaching is not silly or laughable. If one remains unrepentant, what is wrong with stating that an individual is in a ‘state’ of sin, at least objectively speaking? Is being in the ‘state’ of grace problematic as well?