Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[St_Francis]

I’m amazed that people here don’t realize that priests have been making these “calls” for years.

But they have been doing so against what the Church has said to do, so what is your point?

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.

 

[OraLabora]

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

“… 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?

Come on, lighten up a little. I’m not disputing the seriousness of sin, but focusing on its personal nature. None of us, not a single one of us, is not in a “state of sin”. We all have our obstinate sins. I feel singularly unqualified, as a result, to point fingers and single out people who are in a much more difficult situation than I am. There but for the grace of God go I. I have enough trouble managing my own, and am grateful enough for the mercy I do receive that I wish the same for others.

Is being in the ‘state’ of grace problematic as well?

Please stop this amateurish debating tactic of trying to put words in my mouth, and stick to the discussion. I have nowhere come close to even suggesting that. I am saying it is possible for the D & R in difficult cases to have mitigating factors that preclude them for being mortally culpable of the specific grave matter that they commit. I am saying that it is possible, therefore, for them to be in a state of grace in spite of their sin.

We are not debating whether sin exists or not, whether some sins (including adultery) are serious or not. We all agree on those, so please stop playing this silly game. We are arguing about the culpability of a certain sin. What I do see are people trying to have objective criteria on what is a subjective matter.

The gravity of a matter is objective. The degree of culpability is subjective. Again: we shouldn’t be applying the same criteria to a recently divorced person who abandoned their spouse to run off with another, and to a long-ago abandoned spouse who was abused, had their children molested, and entered a second union to find stability and some measure of companionship in life for his or her family. That makes no sense whatsoever. You are treating both as equally culpable. The Holy Father doesn’t, fortunately, and AL makes that clear.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would be illogical to refuse the Eucharist to someone on the basis that they appear to publically contradict the indissolubility of marriage considering that D&R who live as brother and sister may receive the sacraments.

Where the illogicality? It’s not intrinsically evil.
And no, the latter may not receive publicly which is the arena in question.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am saying it is possible for the D & R in difficult cases to have mitigating factors that preclude them for being mortally culpable of the specific grave matter that they commit. I am saying that it is possible, therefore, for them to be in a state of grace in spite of their sin.

AL makes no specific reference to divorced and remarried people receiving Communion. This is an assumption made by some (many). AL does not propose any new doctrine, or any change to doctrine, and should be read in light of established Church teaching. Bearing in mind Pope Francis’s recent ‘streamlining’ of the annulment process, it would seem reasonable to read the remarks in AL as referring to people whose original unions are deemed highly likely to be invalid (but for whatever reason are not yet annulled). If the original union was indeed invalid then these people could receive Communion and be in line with established Church teaching.

If the comments in AL are indeed meant to mean that divorced and remarried people may now receive Communion, would it not have been simpler just to state this clearly in the document?

The permanence of the Sacrament of marriage is not an ideal, it is a fact intrinsic to the nature of the sacrament. The permanence of a marriage is not something that the couple work towards, it is something that happens when the couple are married.

 

[OraLabora]

AL makes no specific reference to divorced and remarried people receiving Communion. This is an assumption made by some (many). AL does not propose any new doctrine, or any change to doctrine, and should be read in light of established Church teaching. Bearing in mind Pope Francis’s recent ‘streamlining’ of the annulment process, it would seem reasonable to read the remarks in AL as referring to people whose original unions are deemed highly likely to be invalid (but for whatever reason are not yet annulled). If the original union was indeed invalid then these people could receive Communion and be in line with established Church teaching.

If the comments in AL are indeed meant to mean that divorced and remarried people may now receive Communion, would it not have been simpler just to state this clearly in the document?

The permanence of the Sacrament of marriage is not an ideal, it is a fact intrinsic to the nature of the sacrament. The permanence of a marriage is not something that the couple work towards, it is something that happens when the couple are married.

The wheel just seems to go round and round. It’s as if nobody is listening.

1. Nobody said doctrine has changed. How that doctrine is applied to specific circumstances, has.
2. The fact that in some difficult cases the D & R may receive the sacraments is not an assumption, it is what is written and supported by the infamous footnote 351.
3. AL has not said that the D & R may categorically receive communion in all cases, and from what I can see on both sides of the debate on this thread, nobody has even remotely suggested that this is the case. Nor does the exhortation suggest it anywhere.

The document clearly (to me at least) suggests that for those in irregular marriages, including the D & R, after going through a discernment process, assistance from the sacraments may be possible in certain specific cases that fall through the cracks in the system.

Nor have I suggested that the sacrament of marriage is an ideal. I am well aware of the permanence of a valid marriage. The ideal is that a validly married couple stay together. Alas that is not always possible, and sometimes for good reasons as the Church clearly states. Ideally the divorcees would stay single for the rest of their lives. However we are a social species, and a sexual one as well, and that doesn’t always happen. Moreover people in this situation often entered it when outside the Church and now want to return and do their best to amend their lives and to complicate matters are married to non-Catholics who won’t cooperate on the “live as brother and sister” idea. Instead some people here seem to think “their best” means perfection.

It seems to me you’re creating a straw man by extending, somewhat disingenuously, my points to make it sound like I am saying that communion is now wide open to all D & R. Please, as I pleaded to irenaeus, kindly stop misrepresenting what I am saying and stick to my actual points, not what you imagine them to be.

 

[TMC]

This is the fourth insult to those who have the temerity to defend what the Church has been teaching for centuries.

I don’t remember insulting anyone, certainly that post was not an insult. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting them.

 

[pnewton]

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

The sad thing is that when I heard the Pope declare that this was the year of mercy, I knew there would be some (a minority) that would resent it. The elder son (in the prodigal son parable) was not just about Pharisees, but about human nature. Peter expressed the same nature in John 21. We have the parable of the workers where the ones who worked all day resented how the master was generous to those who did not work all day. It is a sin, but part of our nature. We need to recognize it when it rears its head. If God, the Church, some priests, deals more mercifully with someone than we think is right, then at least let us recognize that potential for resentment and bitterness within us.

 

[pnewton]

Objective is when one considers the criteria in a general way, so I could say that breaking into a home is a criminal act.

I understand that. However, my question is if a marriage (a second one) is valid in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the Church, is it objectively a state of sin?

When there is a contradiction, which one are you saying is the standard for objective sin?

 

[JosieN]

The wheel just seems to go round and round. It’s as if nobody is listening.

Nor have I suggested that the sacrament of marriage is an ideal. I am well aware of the permanence of a valid marriage. The ideal is that a validly married couple stay together. Alas that is not always possible, and sometimes for good reasons as the Church clearly states. Ideally the divorcees would stay single for the rest of their lives. However we are a social species, and a sexual one as well, and that doesn’t always happen…

You admit married couples should stay together and not get divorced but if they do ideally divorcees should stay single for the rest of their lives. They you say because we are a sexual species this does not happen.

Can’t you see how this is wrong and is not what Jesus taught about divorce and marriage?

I see it as putting your human needs above God’s laws. You can call this mercy or you can call it sin.

 

[Brendan_64]

The wheel just seems to go round and round. It’s as if nobody is listening.

1. Nobody said doctrine has changed. How that doctrine is applied to specific circumstances, has.
2. The fact that in some difficult cases the D & R may receive the sacraments is not an assumption, it is what is written and supported by the infamous footnote 351.

Nowhere in the document does it specifically say that divorced and remarried may receive the Eucharist. That is your interpretation. If it is as clear cut and obvious as you suggest then why hasn’t this been clearly stated in AL (as opposed to hints in obscure footnotes).

If a person whose first union was not actually valid then (regardless of whether it has been officially annulled or not) they are not actually divorced or remarried.

I don’t know why you seem to be so hung up on people whose first union is valid being now allowed to receive Communion.

 

[OraLabora]

Nowhere in the document does it specifically say that divorced and remarried may receive the Eucharist. That is your interpretation. If it is as clear cut and obvious as you suggest then why hasn’t this been clearly stated in AL (as opposed to hints in obscure footnotes).

Nowhere does it categorically say they may not, in all circumstances, bar none. If it’s as clear cut and obvious as you suggest, why hasn’t this been clearly stated in AL?

If a person whose first union was not actually valid then (regardless of whether it has been officially annulled or not) they are not actually divorced or remarried.

Are you suggesting then, that there should be some mechanism for who cannot officially prove nullity to receive communion?

I don’t know why you seem to be so hung up on people whose first union is valid being now allowed to receive Communion.

Presumed valid. I’m not really. I’m hung up on people who fail to show mercy, who focus on the sins of others, and who attempt to second-guess the Pope and worse, like a some in the hierarchy, try to publicly undermine him.

Can’t you see how this is wrong and is not what Jesus taught about divorce and marriage?

Have I ever said it wasn’t wrong? I am simply recognizing a reality. I understand where a lot of these folks are coming from because I had left the Church for 22 long years. I returned 19 years ago and was greatly helped by merciful priests. I am not proud of the life I led when outside the Church, but am glad I was able to repent and come home and receive sacramental grace and I guess I just want everyone who wants to, to have the same chance. So I tend to see things from the point of view of the prodigal son. Most here seem to see it from the point of view of the resentful older brother. If you are not divorced and remarried, what possible impact can a change of discipline have on you? Is your faith dependent on no change ever happening in the Church, or on love for Christ?

Do you want people who are outside the Church, recognize their error, repent, and want to come back in, to be welcomed, or to be told “go away and come back when you’re perfect”. They cannot even go to confession and repent because the sacraments are barred to them until they make radical changes to their lives. We are talking about people who have been maybe 20 years in a second union being told they either have to live as brother and sister or separate. That isn’t exactly “meeting people where they are” and charting a path to inner conversion is it?

I simply don’t understand why so many are so hard of heart and so intransigent on a little mercy being shown in a few rare cases where it may be beneficial to someone’s salvation to do so? People aren’t machines with an on/off switch.

 

[JimG]

Another analysis of chapter 8 of A.L.
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4740/five_serious_problems_with_chapter_8_of_iamoris_laetitiai.aspx

 

[roseofshannon]

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

I’m sorry. I don’t understand.

Who is insisting on damning people?

 

[St_Francis]

I understand that. However, my question is if a marriage (a second one) is valid in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the Church, is it objectively a state of sin?

When there is a contradiction, which one are you saying is the standard for objective sin?

The objective situation is like a model, so one can only see if the circumstances fit the model. So, a couple in a D&R situation would objectively be in a state of mortal sin.

Applying mitigating factors is when people look at the individual situation: suppose the wife had divorced and had then been notified of his death, after which she married. That would certainly be a different situation from that of a woman who left her husband to marry another man.

The problem with your question here is that we only have a partial knowledge of what God is thinking, so we must look at what God taught.

 

[OraLabora]

Another analysis of chapter 8 of A.L.
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4740/five_serious_problems_with_chapter_8_of_iamoris_laetitiai.aspx

So in other words he is saying that my interpretation of AL is more or less correct in that AL does change things and does allow the Eucharist for the D & R in some circumstances, but that he just disagrees with it. Well it does at least strike me as a more honest reading of AL than I’ve been seeing here.

One statement stands out, for me at least, from his article:

But finding it “difficult to act differently” is not alone a sufficient reason not to invite remarried divorcees to extricate themselves from objective adultery. It is safe to say that most all of those who are in this situation will find it difficult to act differently. But Jesus gives us sacramental grace precisely so that we can do with his help what we find very difficult to do on our own…

Except that in the case of the D & R they have to extricate themselves first from objective adultery before they can get the help of sacramental grace to extricate themselves from the situation. It’s a catch-22.

It is disturbing that the text never mentions the universal moral obligation held and taught since the Apostles for separated spouses to abstain from non-marital intercourse.

It is mentioned in footnote 329 that this is the expectation of the Church:

329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. 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” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).

It would suggest to me that while he is no doubt a brilliant doctor of moral theology, he doesn’t have a whole lot of pastoral experience. I wonder how he’d react to being the priest in a confessional telling a penitent in tears that he can’t give her absolution because she can’t change her situation.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t remember insulting anyone, certainly that post was not an insult. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting them.

Your post:

I think this is indicative of the real issue here. When many Catholics look at these families, **all they are worried about **is that someone is “getting away with” having sex with a second partner…

 

[OraLabora]

The objective situation is like a model, so one can only see if the circumstances fit the model. So, a couple in a D&R situation would objectively be in a state of -]mortal/-] grave sin.

Fixed it.

 

[Brendan_64]

Nowhere does it categorically say they may not, in all circumstances, bar none. If it’s as clear cut and obvious as you suggest, why hasn’t this been clearly stated in AL?.

So you are arguing that the fact that something doesn’t state that they may not must mean that they may? That makes no sense at all. If it is as clear as you say, that AL refers is allowing some divorced and remarried people to receive Communion, then why doesn’t it just state this? The whole assumption seems to be pinned on one footnote. A footnote that Pope Francis has said he can’t even remember.

Have I ever said it wasn’t wrong? I am simply recognizing a reality. I understand where a lot of these folks are coming from because I had left the Church for 22 long years. I returned 19 years ago and was greatly helped by merciful priests. I am not proud of the life I led when outside the Church, but am glad I was able to repent and come home and receive sacramental grace and I guess I just want everyone who wants to, to have the same chance. So I tend to see things from the point of view of the prodigal son. Most here seem to see it from the point of view of the resentful older brother. If you are not divorced and remarried, what possible impact can a change of discipline have on you? Is your faith dependent on no change ever happening in the Church, or on love for Christ?

You are way out of line there. Why do you assume that. There are a great many of us (myself included) who have been away from the Church for decades and have been called back. There are far more prodigal sons than you might assume. Yes, I was up to my neck in mortal sin, but having been called back includes the need to resolve to sin no more.

Many of us are not being resentful at all. But it is starting to get rather irritating when people seem to be stating that AL is about allowing divorced and remarried people to receive Communion and that those of us who do not interpret it like this are being resentful. I think you are way out of order there and that your remark is extremely judgemental. You are also saying that if a person doesn’t accept your interpretation of AL they are being mean-spirited.

The Eucharist is not simply some sort of ‘spiritual medicine’ the Eucharist is God. It isn’t a utilitarian tool to be used by the priest as he deems fit, according to what he views the needs of individuals. So you are arguing that if I am not divorced and remarried I ought not care about the Eucharist being treated potentially sacrilegiously? None of my business? The Eucharist is not a tool, the Eucharist is God, my Lord, the one I ought to be prepared to die for. And you say that what happens to the Eucharist is none of my business?

 

[St_Francis]

Fixed it.

I don’t think my using the language of the Church for 1950+ years is something that needs to be fixed.

 

[Brendan_64]

Bishop Egan on Amoris Laetitia. He states that it does not allow communion for the remarried.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/amoris-laetitia-does-not-allow-communion-for-remarried-says-bishop/#.VxpyhK44BUE.facebook

“Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No.”

“Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No. What he says is that instead they need a good priest to reach out to them, to accompany them, to help them discern their situation before the Lord and to enable them to develop, to change and to take their proper place in the Church’s life and mission.”

Bishop Egan is an excellent bishop. A fine Pastoral letter to the flock of his diocese, to be read in all churches at Mass this Sunday.