Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[St_Francis]

Stop this silly game of trying to put words in my mouth. I’m not interested in these sorts of debating games.

What words did I put in your mouth? I asked questions. I brought those problems up previously in the thread; it’s not like I have hidden the reason for my “angst.”

 

[Pug]

I’ll put forth a kind of situation I think is about as complex and difficult as it gets:

A baby boy is baptized Catholic in infancy but not raised in the faith. He contracts a civil marriage with a divorced, non-Catholic and has a few children. As far as he’s concerned, everything in his pagan life is great. Ten years into the union, he has an awakening to his Catholic faith and wants to begin practicing it, including regularizing his marital state: he realizes that the Church does not consider him to be married and so he is not to act as a married man.

The other Party thinks all of this is ridiculous and has no intention whatsoever to become Catholic or even abide by the teaching of the Church. She thinks that the man has no right to impose any restriction on her exercise of her own rights as a wife. Acrimony ensues. The man then tells his priest that the woman will take the kids and leave if he “keeps going on like this.”

Dan

Since several have replied to this, what about if I add to Dan’s scenario? Let’s specify that the first marriage had been a real shotgun wedding due to a teen pregnancy and angry grandfather. The husband had left as soon as he could reliably escape.

 

[Little_Sheep]

If your goal is try to prevent as many people as possible from gaining access to the sacraments, I suppose you might be right. But if the goal is to meet people where they are and help them, I don’t see how you can avoid dealing with the messy details of each individual situation. I think the latter is the Church’s goal, and has been for a lot longer than a week.

I always appreciate your sensibilities. Thank you for this post.

 

[TMC]

My objective is nothing other than to get into those messy details and examine them. I’m trying to get you and everyone else to put aside the vague generalities and invent whatever situation you can imagine that would allow someone who could not receive in the past to properly receive today. The point is, if you cannot imagine such a specific situation how can you assert that such a situation can exist?

Ender

I am not sure what you mean by someone who could not properly receive in the past but could receive now. I don’t think the morality of any particular situation has changed. Maybe you mean that the way you (or someone else) is looking at the situation differently?

Many specific situations have been discussed in this thread, so I am not sure what you are looking for. Situations could include someone who divorces young, remarries and raises a family, but never got an annulment for the first marriage. Another would be the situation described in post 836. The Pope describes others in paragraph 298 of AL.

It seems to me like you are looking for concrete examples so that you can take a crack at shooting them down. You can go ahead and shoot at any of those listed above. The bottom line, to me, is that each situation must be looked at individually, which is what the Pope is teaching us.

 

[OraLabora]

What words did I put in your mouth? I asked questions. I brought those problems up previously in the thread; it’s not like I have hidden the reason for my “angst.”

1. Do you think I have no problem with someone desecrating the a Body and Blood of our Lord? Do you really think I have that little faith?

2). What is the ecclesiastical definition of “desecration”, which is a sin punishable by excommunication? Do you think someone receiving unworthily has committed an excommunicable offence? Or just a mortal sin which can be absolved at confession?

Do you see where I’m going with this? You sir are way out of line.

 

[St_Francis]

1. Do you think I have no problem with someone desecrating the a Body and Blood of our Lord? Do you really think I have that little faith?

2). What is the ecclesiastical definition of “desecration”, which is a sin punishable by excommunication? Do you think someone receiving unworthily has committed an excommunicable offence? Or just a mortal sin which can be absolved at confession?

Do you see where I’m going with this? You sir are way out of line.

I took your question rhetorically, not personally. I thought you were being somewhat flippant to reduce the importance of very real concerns–concerns do real that the Church has acted in a certain way for quite some time.

I do not think that you have no problem with desecration a of the Host, but wanted to forcefully bring to your mind that it ain’t “angst” to be concerned about this situation.

In answer to your second question, someone who has been improperly instructed who then believes they can receive Communion might not confess it…

 

[irenaeus1]

I can’t help but think that people that demand clarity in everything about life must be profoundly unhappy people, because clarity is just about the last .

Jesus was quite clear in this matter. Also, Pope Francis has no problem being clear in regards to abortion or same-sex marriage. Why are clarity in these matters different?

 

[irenaeus1]

Every time I re-read various portions of AL, I try my best to read it in an orthodox light. But the document is so unclear and ambiguous on the issue of discernment and accompaniment surrounding those in ‘irregular’ situations as to cause more harm than good.

All one needs to see is Cardinal Marx, Cardinal Kasper, etc. smiling from ear to ear over AL. That’s enough to tell me that there’s a problem. They have made their positions clear regarding their desire to see change, and their gleeful attitude seems to tell that they got what they wanted. They have even gone on record stating that this means that what may be allowed in Germany may be forbidden in Africa. Are you kidding me? As it was stated by the recent critique by a German theologian, if this Pope is unwilling to correct the matter, we will have to wait for another pontificate to straighten this out

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

The problem is that AL has only made it more difficult for pastors. Robert Spaemann, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Munich, said it well, “Each priest who adheres to the until-now valid discipline of the sacraments, could be mobbed by the faithful and be put under pressure from his bishop. Rome can now make the stipulation that only “merciful” bishops will be named, who are ready to soften the existing discipline. Chaos was raised to a principle by the stroke of a pen.” OraLabora, it doesn’t matter how much it is wished to be rare exceptions, now that it is codified, it will become the rule.

 

[Ender]

Since several have replied to this, what about if I add to Dan’s scenario? Let’s specify that the first marriage had been a real shotgun wedding due to a teen pregnancy and angry grandfather. The husband had left as soon as he could reliably escape.

Good, thank you for addressing this. If it was in fact a shotgun wedding then what was missing was free choice, a necessary element of a viable marriage. This means the first marriage was in fact not valid, and therefore the second one may be regularized. I don’t make light of these situations, I’m only trying to point out that these situations, difficult thought they may be, are covered by existing doctrines.

Ender

 

[Pug]

Good, thank you for addressing this. If it was in fact a shotgun wedding then what was missing was free choice, a necessary element of a viable marriage. This means the first marriage was in fact not valid, and therefore the second one may be regularized. I don’t make light of these situations, I’m only trying to point out that these situations, difficult thought they may be, are covered by existing doctrines.

Ender

How will it be regularized if the wife is uncooperative as Dan specified? Remember, it is the husband in this scenario who wants reunion with the Church. What if Dan can’t somehow get it regularized, or it is going to take very long? He is sure the first marriage was invalid, as you immediately recognized, but that is not the same thing as being able to get it declared so.

 

[Ender]

I am not sure what you mean by someone who could not properly receive in the past but could receive now. I don’t think the morality of any particular situation has changed. Maybe you mean that the way you (or someone else) is looking at the situation differently?

What I mean is that in the past certain people were prohibited from receiving communion who may now be permitted. If the morality of their situation has not changed then either they were improperly barred yesterday or they are improperly permitted today.

Many specific situations have been discussed in this thread, so I am not sure what you are looking for. Situations could include someone who divorces young, remarries and raises a family, but never got an annulment for the first marriage. Another would be the situation described in post 836. The Pope describes others in paragraph 298 of AL.

I responded to the situation described in 836, and while there are surely real world difficulties involved for the people it describes, it doesn’t present a situation where they would be permitted to receive.

It seems to me like you are looking for concrete examples so that you can take a crack at shooting them down. You can go ahead and shoot at any of those listed above. The bottom line, to me, is that each situation must be looked at individually, which is what the Pope is teaching us.

Yes, I am trying to address concrete examples to show that what is suggested by generalities is in fact not possible. It is only by looking at each situation specifically that the problems involved can be clearly exposed.

Ender

 

[roseofshannon]

The problem is that AL has only made it more difficult for pastors. Robert Spaemann, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Munich, said it well, “Each priest who adheres to the until-now valid discipline of the sacraments, could be mobbed by the faithful and be put under pressure from his bishop. Rome can now make the stipulation that only “merciful” bishops will be named, who are ready to soften the existing discipline. Chaos was raised to a principle by the stroke of a pen.” OraLabora, it doesn’t matter how much it is wished to be rare exceptions, now that it is codified, it will become the rule.

I have seen priests who make it clear they are steering clear of even discussing the Gospel in their homily when it’s about divorce and remarriage. They don’t want to have to hear all the complaints and phone calls afterwards.

 

[Waylon102]

It is a shame that a Papal writing can be so unclear and cause so much confusion. The pastor at my Church warned people about this and not to be lead astray. He asked us to pray for the people who may endanger their faith by reading it. The faithful should not have to sift through a Pope’s writing separating the good from the bad. I believe Jesus taught about the importance of being clear when teaching the Faith. It is Satan who likes ambiguity. The endless back and forth on these message boards is proof of that.

 

[roseofshannon]

Thank you for doing this. I think that dealing with specific situations is the only way to clearly understand what is truly involved.

I’ll start by acknowledging this is a very difficult situation, but it is not necessarily a complicated one. The church considers his wife’s first marriage valid until it is specifically declared invalid. Given that she is essentially still married to her first husband, he is in an adulterous relationship. The choice that faces him is as clear as it is dreadful: he either continues to sin in having relations with his wife or his relationship with the woman and his children is terminated.

As I said, it is a horrible situation, but the choice is rather plain: continue to sin or lose your family. Where in church teaching is it allowed for us to do evil that good may come of it? In fact this is expressly forbidden.

Ender

There is another choice:

Go to Mass, receive the graces from adoring the Lord Jesus on the altar, and make spiritual communion with Him. Pray and ask him for some resolution to come forth in your life.

If people were educated about what a mortal sin is and what sacrilege is, there would be plenty of company in the pews during communion. (Heck, I might even be joining you there. )

Then wait upon the Lord. Who knows? Your wife might have a change of heart, or she might die. (sadly) But the point is that many things can happen.

God will only be so pleased by your humility and trust and perseverance that He is sure to answer your prayers in some way.

The life of a Christian is hard. The converts in the early church knew this (think lions consuming your flesh) but it didn’t stop them. The church didn’t die out.

Often it’s ironic how human nature plays out. You think making things easy for people will attract them. But we see that the lax religious orders are dying out while the more traditional ones with stricter rules are growing. Why is Islam growing by leaps and bounds?

Ultimately people value what is harder all the more.

 

[Brendan_64]

Footnote 351 clearly states “in certain cases”. I suppose you’d prefer it if he had said “in certain rare cases”? I don’t think it was the Holy Father’s intention that he allow himself to be boxed in, in the manner you are suggesting. It was his choice and thus something we need to live with.

It is interesting that apparently Pope Francis said that he cannot recall this footnote. It is possible that footnote 351 wasn’t intended, by Pope Francis, to be there at all. If the correspinding paragraph in AL is read without this footnote then it reads quite differently. Is it possible that this footnote was inserted during the editing process?

 

[OraLabora]

It is interesting that apparently Pope Francis said that he cannot recall this footnote. It is possible that footnote 351 wasn’t intended, by Pope Francis, to be there at all. If the correspinding paragraph in AL is read without this footnote then it reads quite differently. Is it possible that this footnote was inserted during the editing process?

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories.

 

[Brendan_64]

What is the ecclesiastical definition of “desecration”, which is a sin punishable by excommunication? Do you think someone receiving unworthily has committed an excommunicable offence? Or just a mortal sin which can be absolved at confession?

What is worse, to be excommunicated or to commit a mortal sin?

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories.

That may be so, but it is reported that Pope Francis said to reporters that he didn’t remember the footnote.

Much has been made of ‘footnote 351’ so much so that appears that some seem to be pinning the entire meaning of that section of chapter 8 on a footnote at the bottom of the page, a footnote Pope Francis is alleged to say he doesn’t remember.

In light of the Pope’s remarks would it not be prudent to read those paragraphs of chapter 8 without regard to footnote 351, or at the very least without viewing this footnote as the key to the interpretation of these paragraphs?

 

[St_Francis]

…2). What is the ecclesiastical definition of “desecration”,

I used the everyday English word; It seems that your were able to understand I meant committing an act of sacrilege.

which is a sin punishable by excommunication? Do you think someone receiving unworthily has committed an excommunicable offence?

I agree with the Church that committing an act of sacrilege against the Host is an excommunicatable offense, both in obedience and intellectually.

Or just a mortal sin which can be absolved at confession…

And how is an excommunication resolved?