Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[Stylteralmaldo]

Luke 5:27-31:

27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, 28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

29 Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Was Jesus not showing an example here on how we should approach this?

If my understanding of the document is correct, Pope Francis hasn’t changed any doctrines. The Church teaches that if you do not obtain an annulment, the first marriage is not dissolved. Therefore, if someone marries another and their other marriage hasn’t been annulled, that person is committing adultery. Would Jesus share Himself (communion) with a sinner (in this case an adulterer)?

 

[Burt_Macklin]

The Church has never taken the black and white logic you use here.
In fact its statements are at pains to avoid the predicate adultery when referring to those in irregular marriages who sincerely believe they were invalidly married and who have been let down by Marriage Tribunals for monetary or technical reasons.

There is a big difference between abandoning and being abandoned.

I’m not sure that I would call it being let down; nobody has any right to an annulment proceeding. At least in the US I’m not sure how you can get any higher than the 95% success rate without making the whole process look like a farce.

 

[OraLabora]

I guess we see it differently. I agree that the teachings have not changed, but I would disagree that mercy (or the definition of mercy that you employ in your last sentence) overrules it.

In AL 297, it seems to me the Pope is saying “don’t just hold up a stop sign to divorced and remarried that says come no further”, rather to help the understand God’s grace in their life is still inviting them to a fuller participation in the Church. His lists examples OTHER than receiving Communion: “social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative”.

Inviting someone to receive Communion when they are not capable (i.e. living in a state of mortal sin), is not merciful.

Except that the document states that not all divorced and remarried Catholics are in a state of mortal sin, that mitigating circumstances may reduce culpability in spite of the objectively grave matter. This is nothing new and has always been Church teaching. The Holy Father is reminding us of this fact by saying that it applies in these cases as well, for some couples, after discernment with a priest.

 

[alwayswill]

lifesitenews.com/news/wildly-divergent-reactions-to-exhortation-a-study-on-the-results-of-ambigui

“**Wildly divergent reactions to Pope’s exhortation: a study on the results of ambiguity **
April 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – From the mainstream media to Catholic experts, from conservatives to liberals, and everything in between, have come **opposing interpretations **of what Pope Francis means in Amoris Laetitia, his post-Synodal apostolic exhortation released today. Particularly on the central question of admittance to Holy Communion of divorced and remarried Catholics, the document has left the question so open as to cause profound confusion”

Why does this continue to happen?
This was not some off-the-cuff interview on plane.

 

[shockerfan]

Except that the document states that not all divorced and remarried Catholics are in a state of mortal sin, that mitigating circumstances may reduce culpability in spite of the objectively grave matter. This is nothing new and has always been Church teaching. The Holy Father is reminding us of this fact by saying that it applies in these cases as well, for some couples, after discernment with a priest.

agreed…an important nuance

As I pondered the teaching of the Church, I was think about “Why does the Pope not just make a definitive statement?” because it would apply to 99%+ of all divorced / remarried cases, and would put a lot of minds to rest. Then, I was reminded the story of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7, where Jesus left the 99 sheep to find the one lost sheep.

Your nuance makes sure we are inclusive of that one sheep.

 

[JackVk]

agreed…an important nuance

As I pondered the teaching of the Church, I was think about “Why does the Pope not just make a definitive statement?” because it would apply to 99%+ of all divorced / remarried cases, and would put a lot of minds to rest. Then, I was reminded the story of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7, where Jesus left the 99 sheep to find the one lost sheep.

Your nuance makes sure we are inclusive of that one sheep.

Yeah, but what if the 99 begin to feel neglected and ostracized? What if they scatter while the shepherd isn’t looking?

 

[OraLabora]

Yeah, but what if the 99 begin to feel neglected and ostracized? What if they scatter while the shepherd isn’t looking?

Why would you feel neglected and ostracized if the situation of that lost sheep didn’t apply to yourself?

I am not divorced and remarried, I am in my first marriage, albeit it was irregular until I had it convalidated. So the situations the Holy Father is talking about no longer apply to me.

Yet I don’t feel threatened because my shepherd has to leave me for a few moments to seek out my lost sibling. Rather the opposite the care He shows for the lost sheep reassures me that if ever I myself become lost again, He will seek me out. I will know I am in the hands of a Good Shepherd and a Loving Father who won’t abandon me.

I don’t get it. Most of the people complaining about communion for the divorced and remarried are not… divorced and remarried

 

[PPeterson]

Yeah, but what if the 99 begin to feel neglected and ostracized? What if they scatter while the shepherd isn’t looking?

Exactly. You guys aren’t upset about a supposed lack of clarity, you just don’t like this part of the Gospel.

Sorry, there’s more than one “hard teaching” in there. Some people walked away because Jesus said his flesh was real food. Some asked who could accept the teaching on marraige. But let’s not forget that the one who turned him over to be killed was a smarmy little goody goody who couldn’t handle a questionable woman not being chided for breaking an expensive jar of oil.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I don’t get it. Most of the people complaining about communion for the divorced and remarried are not… divorced and remarried

The decision doesn’t just affect those who are divorced and remarried but it also shifts the ideal for all marriages. If divorce becomes an easy alternative for people in bad marriages then even those who may just need more encouragement to work on their marriage may through in the towel. Divorce is contagious in that regard, just at the CC says.

And at the end of the day I’m less concerned about whether two adults feel their love life is validated by the Catholic Church and more concerned with what happens to children who are protected by a strong family unit.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’m holding off on commenting until I hear what the Bishops I trust the most have to say.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Don’t believe the spin you are being fed:

Reading between the lines its pretty clear to me that Priests may eventually discern that for some couples in irregular situations no grave fault exists.

.

And then when that priest moves on to another parish the new priest could determine that grave fault does exist. Its much much much better to let the tribunal process play out here. Matt 18:17 even pope francis points this out.

I can easily see a priest become aware of a couple that may be in an irregular situation. The first question could be, “when was your annulment denied?” If the answer is that the process never occurred one would conclude the couple needs to be coaxed along the path of Mercy and given full instruction on the teachings of the Church. If their first marriages were considered valid, then the must do as Chirst said, “sin no more”. Are we talking about the abolishment of the tribunal annulment process?

 

[StJoseph8]

Yeah, but what if the 99 begin to feel neglected and ostracized? What if they scatter while the shepherd isn’t looking?

I believe Jesus answered that question quite well with the latter part of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

 

[deaconjohnO]

The Church has never taken the black and white logic you use here.
irregular marriages who sincerely believe they were invalidly married and who have been let down by Marriage Tribunals for monetary or technical reasons.
.

Your statement is borderline a straw man argument. I would conclude those instances you listed above as a rare.

And Which can be appealed now for free at least in my diocese.

The Tribunal is part of the Church. The Church happens to be the pillar and foundation of truth…not an individual’s conscience. Remember the conscience is a pupil not a teacher.

 

[Pug]

And then when that priest moves on to another parish the new priest could determine that grave fault does exist. Its much much much better to let the tribunal process play out here. Matt 18:17 even pope francis points this out.

I can easily see a priest become aware of a couple that may be in an irregular situation. The first question could be, “when was your annulment denied?” If the answer is that the process never occurred one would conclude the couple needs to be coaxed along the path of Mercy and given full instruction on the teachings of the Church. If their first marriages were considered valid, then the must do as Chirst said, “sin no more”. Are we talking about the abolishment of the tribunal annulment process?

I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that all Catholics (divorced and remarried outside the Church) ought to be coaxed into going through the full tribunal process (unless it is defect of form), even if they are living as brother and sister? It is my understanding that the reason such a high percentage of sought annulments are granted is that they are pre-vetted by the parish priest and so most people who would be denied never officially apply for declaration of nullity. Or are you saying that people who have been afraid to even approach the priest to get information ought to be encouraged to talk to the priest and find out? But in the latter case, I thought they already were so encouraged.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that all Catholics (divorced and remarried outside the Church) ought to be coaxed into going through the full tribunal process (unless it is defect of form), even if they are living as brother and sister? ** It is my understanding that the reason such a high percentage of sought annulments are granted is that they are pre-vetted by the parish priest and so most people who would be denied never officially apply for declaration of nullity.** Or are you saying that people who have been afraid to even approach the priest to get information ought to be encouraged to talk to the priest and find out? But in the latter case, I thought they already were so encouraged.

There is zero evidence for that being the case. Separating good from bad tribunal cases is a very difficult process and there isn’t a very good chance someone could do it with a 95% success rate. There is just a certain point where you are just a little too good at your job.

 

[Pug]

There is zero evidence for that being the case. Separating good from bad tribunal cases is a very difficult process and there isn’t a very good chance someone could do it with a 95% success rate. There is just a certain point where you are just a little too good at your job.

Are you saying that they are pre-vetting, but doing it badly, so that many people are falsely discouraged from even trying?

 

[kyrie03]

agreed…an important nuance

As I pondered the teaching of the Church, I was think about “Why does the Pope not just make a definitive statement?” because it would apply to 99%+ of all divorced / remarried cases, and would put a lot of minds to rest. Then, I was reminded the story of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7, where Jesus left the 99 sheep to find the one lost sheep.

Your nuance makes sure we are inclusive of that one sheep.

Your analogy makes perfect sense……except the sheep are already in state of confusion about what is/isn’t dangerous (they aren’t in a safe pasture for the Shepherd to leave them). The apostolic exhortation leads the divorced/civilly remarried to believe they might in good conscience now start receiving Communion.

Do you know who the lost sheep are according to the Fathers of the Church?

 

[deaconjohnO]

I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that all Catholics (divorced and remarried outside the Church) ought to be coaxed into going through the full tribunal process (unless it is defect of form), even if they are living as brother and sister? It is my understanding that the reason such a high percentage of sought annulments are granted is that they are pre-vetted by the parish priest and so most people who would be denied never officially apply for declaration of nullity. Or are you saying that people who have been afraid to even approach the priest to get information ought to be encouraged to talk to the priest and find out? But in the latter case, I thought they already were so encouraged.

I dunno. My parents are a good example of how pre-vetting can fail big time. They were married for 33 years. The priest told my mother that due to the duration of the marriage annulment was not possible. My mother persisted and found another priest to petition for annulment. During the process my Father was interviewed and willingly admitted that he does not and never has believed in the permanence of marriage. He willingly admitted that he entered into an arrangement that he viewed as potentially temporary.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Are you saying that they are pre-vetting, but doing it badly, so that many people are falsely discouraged from even trying?

I never discourage people to seek help of the bride of Christ. If you think about it, it could be a very bad thing to allowing people to persist in belief that they are married to someone when in fact they are not. This is regardless of if they are seeking the annulment for marriage purposes or other reasons. Additionally in some parishes ( like mine) the priest is not always involved at with couples. Sometimes its a parish deacon.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Are you saying that they are pre-vetting, but doing it badly, so that many people are falsely discouraged from even trying?

That’s one possible explanation, sure. It could be that some people with weak cases are not getting their day in court.

All I know is that in my job I look for cases of stellar performance as evidence of pencil whipping a job. In deciding which cases to try I suspect they are either pushing through every case regardless of merit or acting like a picky prizefighter only picking the fights he knows he can win.