Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[Wesrock]

Alright, read the first eight section. So far it seems like section 8 has called more for nuanced, careful discernment, but I don’t see anything controversial in here that any honest bishop or priest couldn’t understand. You’d have to be completely ignorant of the Church’s current and traditional policies to run amuck with this. Pope Francis brings up mortal sin as defined in the catechism, what’s required for it, force of habit, nothing new. But he is clearly also against full participation in the sacraments except in exceptional cases. I suppose everybody wants to think they are exceptional, though.

 

[Brendan_64]

Should the Church stop trying to do better and teach better, just because it is old? The Church has been working toward a better understanding for 2,000 years, which is what Francis is doing now.

So what is the clear understanding now on Communion for those who have remarried?

Is the new clarity now a clear understanding that due to the complexity of human beings and their relationships the situation is now no longer to be regarded as clear?

 

[TMC]

So what is the clear understanding now on Communion for those who have remarried?

Is the new clarity now a clear understanding that due to the complexity of human beings and their relationships the situation is now no longer to be regarded as clear?

The clarity is that it is a morally complex situation that requires thought and discernment, and that Catholics in this situation should seek out their pastors for help with that discernment. AL provides guidance on how to think through the situation, at some length, but no cookie cutter answers.

 

[OraLabora]

I think, and this is just my opinion, that they think there may be a “hidden agenda” behind it, If governments and groups want change sometimes they need to do things in a different way to get the results they want and they think that is what might be happening here. They wonder if being unclear was intentiontional because it allows everyone to make their own interpretation. This would allow change without the normal processes and approval. It is just a thought, so please don’t write me a page about how wrong it is, as I did not say it was right.

I don’t mean to be flippant, but have you read the document yet? If not, perhaps doing so would put your mind at rest.

It’s not that difficult a read. It’s written in plain language. Moreover, some parts are genuinely inspirational and worth the time to read.

 

[Brendan_64]

The clarity is that it is a morally complex situation that requires thought and discernment, and that Catholics in this situation should seek out their pastors for help with that discernment. AL provides guidance on how to think through the situation, at some length, but no cookie cutter answers.

I see you don’t mention access to Communion in your answer. Thought and discernment about what and to what end? Or does the new ‘clarity’ include not even mentioning specific issues directly, but rather in hinting and implying answer to questions not even stated.

 

[TMC]

I see you don’t mention access to Communion in your answer. Thought and discernment about what and to what end? Or does the new ‘clarity’ include not even mentioning specific issues directly, but rather in hinting and implying answer to questions not even stated.

I am not hinting or implying. I am assuming that you are reading in context and good faith, as I am. Thought and discernment would obviously include the issue of access to the sacraments, including communion. That is what this thread is about, right?

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t mean to be flippant, but have you read the document yet? If not, perhaps doing so would put your mind at rest.

It’s not that difficult a read. It’s written in plain language. Moreover, some parts are genuinely inspirational and worth the time to read.

And it does not directly mention Communion for the remarried, but that doesn’t stop people claiming the document supports this.

 

[pnewton]

Oh Dear! Very little that Pope Francis says is clear. To avoid confusion, follow the already defined Dogmas and Doctrines of the Church and don’t get wrapped up in exhortations that aren’t binding. Makes life much easier.

If you wish to ignore the Pope, that is your business. I think it wrong to encourage others to do the same. Most Catholics do not pick and choose which letters to read from those they love, those with the authority of Christ, and those that know more than they do. “thumbs down”

 

[Waylon102]

Ambiguity is not an admirable trait in Church writings as we can see with all the confusion and “what he really means by that is . . .” explanations that are popular when interpreting the latest writing of the current Pontiff. In contrast read anything by St. Pius X or any other Pius for that matter. You know where they stand and one isn’t forced to twist themself into a pretzel explaining what their writings “really mean”.

 

[pnewton]

So why the particular need for ‘nuances’ today and the need to accommodate and allow for such complexities today when such an approach was not needed for 2,000 years? Has the Church gotten it wrong for so long?

This particular nuance is not new. It is almost 2000 years old, dating back to the teaching of Paul on the conscience of liberty of the Christian. He was far more a champion of Christian liberty than any liberal theologian. But he dealt with the real Pharisees. Heck, he was a real Pharisee. Maybe that is why I get this letter. I am looking at it through the lens of the Pauline epistles.

 

[pnewton]

Ambiguity is not an admirable trait in Church writings as we can see with all the confusion and “what he really means by that is . . .” explanations that are popular when interpreting the latest writing of the current Pontiff. In contrast read anything by St. Pius X or any other Pius for that matter.

Pick your pope? I do not know yet what is ambiguous. The latter part is* general*, but I am beginning to think this distinction escapes many people. And no, this is not a nuance. It is vocabulary.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If someone is properly disposed to receive communion he may do so to his benefit. If he is not properly disposed to receive it then reception is a grave sin. Where does compassion enter into this? We don’t call it compassionate to give someone that which he may legitimately receive, and giving someone something that is seriously harmful can be called many things, but compassionate is not one of them.

Ender

Compassion is relevant for “states of sin”.

Afterall Jesus provided us a means for extricating ourselves from Original Sin when we were hardly disposed.

But as noted previously you seem currently unable to distinguish “objectively offensive sinful states”, “objectively offensive sinful matter” and “morally offensive personal acts” which is why I am unable to discuss these things more deeply with you Ender.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If moral theologians reach no consensus, much less unanimity, what is the Catholic in the pew in a D&R situation to follow or one with a loved one in such a situation to understand?

I love this Pope for whom I pray. On plain reading of AL, however, I can’t help but be confused with what he is saying. Why can’t he be clear in his exhortation?

ALope Francis has created confusion where we needed clarity.

thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/919/amoris-laetitia-pope-francis-has-created-confusion-where-we-needed-clarity#comments

,

Do we actually live in a Church where everything is black and white rather than a slowly forming consensus of the faithful over time?

Trent has a lot to answer for, though understandable in the face of Protestantism and the Enlioghtenment.
But alas, it never truly was so and perhaps now its time for us laity to grow up a little.

 

[St_Francis]

Do we actually live in a Church where everything is black and white rather than a slowly forming consensus of the faithful over time?l

It’s not an either/or question, is it? For example, the “consensus of the faithful” in the west seems to be that abc is ok.

Church teaching is more discovered than that it evolves. Yes, people get themselves into complicated situations which they later regret, but does that justify allowing someone who is living in an ongoing adulterous situation to receive the Body of our Lord, Who suffered and dies for us? Is that why He died, so we can live as we please and have rules changed around for our convenience?

Trent has a lot to answer for, though understandable in the face of Protestantism and the Enlightenment.

What does Trent have to answer for?

But alas, it never truly was so and perhaps now its time for us laity to grow up a little.

What is grown-up about making changes which are in no way justified for the convenience of people who have gotten themselves into a jam? Maybe it’s time to consider that adults accept the consequences of their acts and live with them?

 

[OraLabora]

What is grown-up about making changes which are in no way justified for the convenience of people who have gotten themselves into a jam? Maybe it’s time to consider that adults accept the consequences of their acts and live with them?

It’s not for the convenience of everyone. AL is for the salvation of souls. Again, when reading AL, it should be abundantly clear that the discernment process does not lead to being “convenient for everyone”. That is a straw man. As was pointed out, Jesus did not force adults to accept the consequences of their acts. He showed them a path towards salvation, right up until death (cf. the Good Thief).

The Church, as Jesus’s chosen instrument on Earth, needs to emulate His ways. We can argue at length about how to do this, but one thing is clear, it does not involve abandoning penitents as you suggest, it means helping them towards their salvation.

 

[Ender]

The clarity is that it is a morally complex situation…

I clearly don’t understand the moral complexity of these situations. It would help if you could give an example of such a situation where the moral choice is difficult to make. I don’t do well with vagueness and generalities.

Ender

 

[Ender]

But as noted previously you seem currently unable to distinguish “objectively offensive sinful states”, “objectively offensive sinful matter” and “morally offensive personal acts” which is why I am unable to discuss these things more deeply with you Ender.

I think the difficulty between us is that when I ask for specifics you respond with generalized attacks on me personally. Either compassion plays a part in determining a person’s fitness to receive communion or it doesn’t, and nothing about my understanding of “objectively offensive sinful states” et al matters.

Ender

 

[St_Francis]

It’s not for the convenience of everyone. AL is for the salvation of souls. Again, when reading AL, it should be abundantly clear that the discernment process does not lead to being “convenient for everyone”. That is a straw man. As was pointed out, Jesus did not force adults to accept the consequences of their acts. He showed them a path towards salvation, right up until death (cf. the Good Thief).

The Church, as Jesus’s chosen instrument on Earth, needs to emulate His ways. We can argue at length about how to do this, but one thing is clear, it does not involve abandoning **penitents **as you suggest, it means helping them towards their salvation.

Since the intended effect or meaning of the footnote in an exhortation remains unclear, I am not referring to AL.

True penitents *repent; *they fully intend to turn away from their sin. We do not help penitents attain Heaven by helping them to continue in their sin by minimizing and compounding it.

 

[OraLabora]

Since the intended effect or meaning of the footnote in an exhortation remains unclear, I am not referring to AL.

True penitents *repent; *they fully intend to turn away from their sin. We do not help penitents attain Heaven by helping them to continue in their sin by minimizing and compounding it.

Which again is not what AL is doing. Which is the topic of this discussion.

Moreover the “controversial” parts of AL are not directed towards us, but towards our pastors. Any plain reading of AL would show that the Holy Father wants to bring those in irregular relationships back to the fullness of revealed Truth, not to wallow in their sin.

He is asking his pastors to help them chart a path back to Truth, by discerning their circumstances and what steps are possible to move forward, one step at a time. One assumes if they are sitting in front of a priest to go through that process, there actually is a measure of repentance.

 

[St_Francis]

Which again is not what AL is doing. Which is the topic of this discussion.

Moreover the “controversial” parts of AL are not directed towards us, but towards our pastors. Any plain reading of AL would show that the Holy Father wants to bring those in irregular relationships back to the fullness of revealed Truth, not to wallow in their sin.

But some here are suggesting that the Pope intended to say that those in irregular marital situations could receive the sacraments while continuing to have sex with the person to whom they consider themselves married.

Personally, I think that given the strong teachings and consequent discipline in the past, the Pope would not make such a change in the footnote of an exhortation, which is why I believe that the intention of the Pope’s comment there is unclear.

He is asking his pastors to help them chart a path back to Truth, by discerning their circumstances and what steps are possible to move forward, one step at a time. One assumes if they are sitting in front of a priest to go through that process, there actually is a measure of repentance.

And the past teaching of the Church would indicate that a part of that path would be to eschew marital relations with a non-spouse.