Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[pnewton]

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,… Chaos was raised to a principle by the stroke of a pen."

I would not view anything being “said well” when they accuse the Holy Father of raising chaos to to a principle. If he is going to engage in such rhetoric, he best look to his own beam.

 

[pnewton]

Christ said He came to being not peace but a sword. Sometimes people need to give up something very important for something even more important.

Christ offers peace to his disciples. St. Paul wishes us all peace. I would not use one verse to disparage the value of peace. Yes, there are times when peace comes at a price too great. This is precisely why discernment between the priest and the penitent will be a process. Is the priest truly dealing with a penitent disciple, one to who Jesus is extending His peace; or is he dealing with someone who just want an easy faith, and an easy fix?

 

[pnewton]

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

What is actually said is:

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See;

The purpose must be sacrilege, not the action. Receiving communion unworthily is a sacrilege, but may be done (mistakenly) for the purpose of grace, or even appearance. This canon is more targeted toward things like taking communion for Black Mass, to sell on ebay and that sort of stuff

 

[TMC]

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?

I find that Church documents can be made to say whatever you want, if you are willing to read them as if certain parts didn’t exist. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is the way it works.

 

[otjm]

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.

Nothing, to the best of my knowledge, has been codified. The 1983 code still stands, as well as other legislation.

The problem does not belong to Spaemann (who, if I recall, is a philosopher, not a theologian); rather, it belongs to the bishop, who is to lead his priests in the rare situations which might come up. Mobbed? Please, spare me. the vast majority of people in second marriages without a decree of nullity don’t even come to church, and the vast majority of non-practicing Catholics are not on Catholic websites - so how is it that they will suddenly “know”? Seems someone forgot about a few “minor” details.

A whole bunch of people “mob” the priest? Well, guess what - there is a simple answer; the tribunals have not been disbanded. And absolutely nothing in AL indicates they are not to be used, or to be substituted out.

 

[St_Francis]

What is actually said is:

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See;

The purpose must be sacrilege, not the action. Receiving communion unworthily is a sacrilege, but may be done (mistakenly) for the purpose of grace, or even appearance. This canon is more targeted toward things like taking communion for Black Mass, to sell on ebay and that sort of stuff

It has been generally agreed throughout the history of the Church that receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin without a grave reason is a sacrilege. What I in or not in canon law about it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Tomdstone]

It has been generally agreed throughout the history of the Church that receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin without a grave reason is a sacrilege. What I in or not in canon law about it is completely irrelevant.

What if you are not sure that you are in an objective state of mortal sin and you say an act of contrition before receiving?

 

[otjm]

It has been generally agreed throughout the history of the Church that receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin without a grave reason is a sacrilege. What I in or not in canon law about it is completely irrelevant.

Well, actually it does, since you are the one who brought up excommunication.

 

[roseofshannon]

Nothing, to the best of my knowledge, has been codified. The 1983 code still stands, as well as other legislation.

The problem does not belong to Spaemann (who, if I recall, is a philosopher, not a theologian); rather, it belongs to the bishop, who is to lead his priests in the rare situations which might come up. Mobbed? Please, spare me.

As I noted earlier, priests have commented in their homilies that they don’t want to even touch the gospel of the day if it deals with divorce and remarriage in order to avoid all the confrontation outside and phone calls etc.

the vast majority of people in second marriages without a decree of nullity don’t even come to church, and the vast majority of non-practicing Catholics are not on Catholic websites - so how is it that they will suddenly “know”? Seems someone forgot about a few “minor” details.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media loves to take these stories and run with them so the uneducated Catholics get the wrong impression.

A whole bunch of people “mob” the priest? Well, guess what - there is a simple answer; the tribunals have not been disbanded. And absolutely nothing in AL indicates they are not to be used, or to be substituted out.

As was the case with my Father, there are priests who will say, “Listen, those annulments take forever. Let me just marry you since you are clearly in love.”

Everyone wants to be liked. It’s human nature. It’s hard for priests to take the hard line and tell people to wait for months or years or to live as brother and sister.

Many priests will be faithful even unto death, but sadly there are also many who will cave to pressure.

 

[pnewton]

It has been generally agreed throughout the history of the Church that receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin without a grave reason is a sacrilege. What I in or not in canon law about it is completely irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant to excommunication, which is what was stated. Mortal sin is not the same as excommunication.

 

[pnewton]

As was the case with my Father, there are priests who will say, “Listen, those annulments take forever. Let me just marry you since you are clearly in love.”

While the focus of most of the discussions have been on the possibilities for people in “irregular situations”, I have found little about the call to priest to be faithful to the ideal of marriage. For those who have been playing fast and loose, there is a message of restraint, limits that need to temper this abuse.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As was the case with my Father, there are priests who will say, “Listen, those annulments take forever. Let me just marry you since you are clearly in love.”

Everyone wants to be liked. It’s human nature. It’s hard for priests to take the hard line and tell people to wait for months or years or to live as brother and sister.

Many priests will be faithful even unto death, but sadly there are also many who will cave to pressure.

You are making throughout several threads extremely serious allegations…allegations that are canonical offenses of the most serious nature and that touch upon the integrity of a bishop’s stewardship of his episcopate and of the integrity of the clergy of a diocese.

If you have proof of what you relate…you and now the priest who is supposedly counseling you and whose information you have chosen to freely divulge that is injurious to his bishop and his diocese…you and he have a moral obligation to now make this known to competent ecclesiastical authorities rather than bandying about innuendo on an Internet forum.

You are accusing, by what you have written, the diocesan bishop and the chancery of a diocese of suborning the simulation of sacraments and of wanton disregard for canonical due process relative to the canonical celebration of marriage and and the issuance of declarations of nullity.

Until I retired, I have lived and worked as a priest in 11 countries. I have never encountered what you allege, or anything even proximate to it occurring this fashion:

• A priest who expresses no confidence in the tribunal of his diocese – which until Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, the said tribunal was having every case reviewed by an appellate process in the court of second instance…so I am fascinated for someone (who is not you) to explain to me if this was a process of collusion between two courts that is being alleged. We also have the issue of the time-frame…was this occurring for a short term or over how many terms of those who have held the office of diocesan bishop as well as metropolitan for the court of second instance and in what time period? And over the terms of how many judicial vicars who have served in that office in both tribunals?
• Those who make allegations of such serious nature must be prepared to answer them because priests can face even loss of the clerical state for what you are alleging…and those who lie or misrepresent fact can face severe consequences from their bishop, administered in the external forum.
• A priest who is marrying couples without completing the necessary canonically mandated steps that must be in place both to assure a determination of nullity has been made and then, before officiating at a marriage, include the investigation of freedom to marry, any mandated preparation from the Ordinary and the tribunal, any needed permissions or dispensations, recourse before and after to the parishes of baptism that must be informed of the event in light of the sacramental record, recourse to the diocesan archive. To fail in all this and, moreover, to actively falsify sacramental records with intent to deceive an ecclesiastical superior – to say nothing of ignoring a prior bond circumstance – these are each grave in the extreme and collectively present an issue of phenomenal magnitude.
• I have never encountered a situation in which a priest simply inserts a wedding liturgy into what you present as a morning weekday Mass, least of all for a situation such as you describe.

All of this needs to be addressed by the bishop or by the appropriate dicasteries of Rome – if truly all this happened in the way you relate.

You are cross-posting iterations of the same events in multiple threads. In either this thread or another, there is a reference to another priest counseling you in which, by what you relate, he denounces his diocese for a failure to apply adequate measures and rubrics to justly fulfill their task – you need to inform this priest that you have now divulged his confidence to you on these matters on this public website and give him the chance to read what you have written and inform him that, through what you have divulged, he now has an obligation to pursue this matter so that his diocese can be either vindicated of these allegations which you have made – with opportunity for those he is accusing to answer and rebut his allegations – or else these officials can be assisted by competent authority to correct the process as it unfolds in their diocese.

In the one matter, I tracked down the text you wrote as:

To be clear, I was told by my Pastor his experience with annulments has been that he has seen cases that were really cut and dry invalidity that were not approved, and some that were clearly frivolous that were approved.

I hope you understand you have made extremely serious allegations that justify severe canonical penalties and call for the truthfulness of what you allege to be investigated and vetted. They also call for an investigation so that these men may clear themselves of these allegations if the allegations are, in fact, not sustained – and with penalties against those who have made any false allegations.

Quite simply: if what you write is true, then the practice needs to be stopped. If, however, you have not accurately depicted the events and actually there are legitimate canonical procedures at work in the unfolding of these events, procedures with which you may not agree or even be aware of, that needs to be brought forward and the parties vindicated and these allegations silenced.

As best I can discern, you allegations touch more than one priest, more than one bishop (and I presume an archbishop), and more than one tribunal…with the exact numbers difficult to ascertain.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Originally Posted by St Francis View Post
It has been generally agreed throughout the history of the Church that receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin without a grave reason is a sacrilege. What I in or not in canon law about it is completely irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant to excommunication, which is what was stated. Mortal sin is not the same as excommunication.

Kindly bear in mind that both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, through the precise formulations they use, indicate to those who use these respective texts in their professional work, that there is a real distinction between sacrilege as a sin, which is within the competence of moral theology and of moral theologians, and sacrilege as a canonical offense which is in the province of the Code of Canon Law and the perview of canonists and these have their own proceedings.

It is not helpful – and actually it is positively harmful – to conflate the two realities and their respective effects.

Thank you.

 

[St_Francis]

What if you are not sure that you are in an objective state of mortal sin and you say an act of contrition before receiving?

This is the sort of thing best discussed with a priest, who can advise based on a more thorough knowledge of the person.

 

[St_Francis]

It is not irrelevant to excommunication, which is what was stated.

I did not bring up excommunication, and just because it was brought up does not mean that it is relevant to the topic.

Mortal sin is not the same as excommunication.

Exactly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Nothing, to the best of my knowledge, has been codified. The 1983 code still stands, as well as other legislation.

The problem does not belong to Spaemann (who, if I recall, is a philosopher, not a theologian); rather, it belongs to the bishop, who is to lead his priests in the rare situations which might come up.

Not only is he not a theologian, he does not have the cura animarum. Better if people would ask those of us who do have the cura animarum rather than wring their hands over how hard this is going to be for us. It really isn’t. We know what we’re doing.

After all these decades, I don’t get that many pitches thrown that I don’t know how to field them – decades as a pastor, a professor, chancery official.

Eventually, there will be alterations to the code, for sure. And good. As the pope said now, though…this is the time for the bishops and the theologians to propose what can be done by the Holy See to improve the situation and the processes and to make them more in keeping with the lived reality of the 21st century. Nothing will change overnight.

The Pope beautifully invites the world’s bishops (and bishops conferences!) to collaborate with him as well as the theological community. This isn’t a moment to say “Where did we end up?” This document is just getting us in the car, turning on the engine, and moving toward some place. Of course, I will be dead before the motor has even warmed up in a few years from now. This document is just the start of a long but needed journey.

I can’t understand everyone being so anxious about what they’re “going to do.” There’s nothing to do. If you’re not a bishop or a priest…MAYBE a deacon, there’s not going to be anything to “do” or refuse to do…in fact, a lay person in the parish shouldn’t be involved at all – unless you’re the one needing pastoral care. You won’t be giving pastoral care in these unique sorts of circumstances, that’s for sure – and you should not even be aware if something is happening, by and large.

Mobbed? Please, spare me. the vast majority of people in second marriages without a decree of nullity don’t even come to church, and the vast majority of non-practicing Catholics are not on Catholic websites - so how is it that they will suddenly “know”? Seems someone forgot about a few “minor” details. A whole bunch of people “mob” the priest?

This brings a smile. The last time I was mobbed it was the day I was ordained a priest. It was an orderly mob…everyone waiting, one after another for several hours, patiently hoping for a first blessing. Haven’t been mobbed since. Not going to be.

Some people seem to think there is this massive wave of people just waiting to swoop in when there is an adjustment. There isn’t. I have had a couple of people say “So…will this affect my life at all?” Considering the demographic asking…the answer was “No.” There are a few people I can see this making some difference in their lives out of the universe of people I minister to. Maybe it will help some long gone to come back at least closer.

The nicest thing would be if people would pray. Pray for the people this document was meant to actually touch, so they get the message. Pray for the bishops and priests in the dioceses as we meet about this document and how it together with the words from the synods and what we receive from the Holy Father and the discasteries are to be integrated into our daily life and ministry and re-shape what we say and do.

And pray for the bishops and for those who are theologians on the national and global stage who will be the implementers of this document.

Well, guess what - there is a simple answer; the tribunals have not been disbanded. And absolutely nothing in AL indicates they are not to be used, or to be substituted out.

Thanks to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, the tribunals have been streamlined to be, hopefully, more efficient and making better use of time and resources. There’s no question that we will see efforts to make all of this better in the effort to provide more effective pastoral care in this area…but we have seen that now for decades. I am grateful for the changes…they are changes we have needed. It’s one more set of steps on what is a long road. Tribunals are here to stay and will be doing the lion’s share of the work on dealing with these issues.

I remember when we delegated the defect of form cases and even prior bond with defect of form as the issue…the vicars forane and then the pastors were trained on what to do and the paperwork needed – and they did the investigation and they signed off on the forms that went to the curia. No crises. System kept on working.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Originally Posted by roseofshannon View Post
Sadly, the priest misbehaved grossly.

The annulment was denied but my Dad claims he received one in secret.

There are no secret annulments.

My Dad’s priest told him before the annulment (which my Mom applied for) was even decided by the tribunal (which turned out to be negative) that these things take so long and you two are clearly in love so why don’t I just marry you at morning Mass tomorrow.

So I’m essentially calling his bluff in my letter to him since nobody else will.

This is the kind of scenario I’m afraid will become more frequent from the “spirit of Amoris Laetitia”.

There will essentially be no accountability.

Accountability? To whom? A priest is accountable to his bishop. A diocese is accountable to the Holy See.

Actually, you are not in a position to make the determination of what happened. Your father would be…as would those clerics who worked with him.

It has taken me quite a bit of time to try to piece together what you are alleging because of how you piece this story together across multiple posts and multiple threads. There is, actually, a way involving the utilisation of a special disposition that could have brought a resolution which could have yielded the declaration of nullity being granted in an exceptional fashion – and exactly in this way. It is a special circumstance. If he was the recipient of that intervention and did receive the annulment through that mechanism, a priest could have acted with impunity to marry without further investigation.

What you write describes two very actual if atypical possibilities. If this actually is one of those two situations…and it seems it might be… this is a text book case in why someone who does not know either the code or all the relevant issues or all the possibilities that exist which are outside the range of the norm should not rush to conclusions simply because the fact pattern does not fit what is normal or routine in a diocese. It was thanks to two things you wrote that I knew that what your father said may, in fact, be exactly what happened.

 

[roseofshannon]

You are making throughout several threads extremely serious allegations…allegations that are canonical offenses of the most serious nature and that touch upon the integrity of a bishop’s stewardship of his episcopate and of the integrity of the clergy of a diocese.

If you have proof of what you relate…you and now the priest who is supposedly counseling you and whose information you have chosen to freely divulge that is injurious to his bishop and his diocese…you and he have a moral obligation to now make this known to competent ecclesiastical authorities rather than bandying about innuendo on an Internet forum.

You are accusing, by what you have written, the diocesan bishop and the chancery of a diocese of suborning the simulation of sacraments and of wanton disregard for canonical due process relative to the canonical celebration of marriage and and the issuance of declarations of nullity.

Until I retired, I have lived and worked as a priest in 11 countries. I have never encountered what you allege, or anything even proximate to it occurring this fashion:

• A priest who expresses no confidence in the tribunal of his diocese – which until Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, the said tribunal was having every case reviewed by an appellate process in the court of second instance…so I am fascinated for someone (who is not you) to explain to me if this was a process of collusion between two courts that is being alleged. We also have the issue of the time-frame…was this occurring for a short term or over how many terms of those who have held the office of diocesan bishop as well as metropolitan for the court of second instance and in what time period? And over the terms of how many judicial vicars who have served in that office in both tribunals?
• Those who make allegations of such serious nature must be prepared to answer them because priests can face even loss of the clerical state for what you are alleging…and those who lie or misrepresent fact can face severe consequences from their bishop, administered in the external forum.
• A priest who is marrying couples without completing the necessary canonically mandated steps that must be in place both to assure a determination of nullity has been made and then, before officiating at a marriage, include the investigation of freedom to marry, any mandated preparation from the Ordinary and the tribunal, any needed permissions or dispensations, recourse before and after to the parishes of baptism that must be informed of the event in light of the sacramental record, recourse to the diocesan archive. To fail in all this and, moreover, to actively falsify sacramental records with intent to deceive an ecclesiastical superior – to say nothing of ignoring a prior bond circumstance – these are each grave in the extreme and collectively present an issue of phenomenal magnitude.
• I have never encountered a situation in which a priest simply inserts a wedding liturgy into what you present as a morning weekday Mass, least of all for a situation such as you describe.

All of this needs to be addressed by the bishop or by the appropriate dicasteries of Rome – if truly all this happened in the way you relate.

You are cross-posting iterations of the same events in multiple threads. In either this thread or another, there is a reference to another priest counseling you in which, by what you relate, he denounces his diocese for a failure to apply adequate measures and rubrics to justly fulfill their task – you need to inform this priest that you have now divulged his confidence to you on these matters on this public website and give him the chance to read what you have written and inform him that, through what you have divulged, he now has an obligation to pursue this matter so that his diocese can be either vindicated of these allegations which you have made – with opportunity for those he is accusing to answer and rebut his allegations – or else these officials can be assisted by competent authority to correct the process as it unfolds in their diocese.

In the one matter, I tracked down the text you wrote as:

I hope you understand you have made extremely serious allegations that justify severe canonical penalties and call for the truthfulness of what you allege to be investigated and vetted. They also call for an investigation so that these men may clear themselves of these allegations if the allegations are, in fact, not sustained – and with penalties against those who have made any false allegations.

Quite simply: if what you write is true, then the practice needs to be stopped. If, however, you have not accurately depicted the events and actually there are legitimate canonical procedures at work in the unfolding of these events, procedures with which you may not agree or even be aware of, that needs to be brought forward and the parties vindicated and these allegations silenced.

As best I can discern, you allegations touch more than one priest, more than one bishop (and I presume an archbishop), and more than one tribunal…with the exact numbers difficult to ascertain.

I’m very sorry, Father. Perhaps I have said too much. Please forgive me.

 

[roseofshannon]

Accountability? To whom? A priest is accountable to his bishop. A diocese is accountable to the Holy See.

Actually, you are not in a position to make the determination of what happened. Your father would be…as would those clerics who worked with him.

It has taken me quite a bit of time to try to piece together what you are alleging because of how you piece this story together across multiple posts and multiple threads. There is, actually, a way involving the utilisation of a special disposition that could have brought a resolution which could have yielded the declaration of nullity being granted in an exceptional fashion – and exactly in this way. It is a special circumstance. If he was the recipient of that intervention and did receive the annulment through that mechanism, a priest could have acted with impunity to marry without further investigation.

What you write describes two very actual if atypical possibilities. If this actually is one of those two situations…and it seems it might be… this is a text book case in why someone who does not know either the code or all the relevant issues or all the possibilities that exist which are outside the range of the norm should not rush to conclusions simply because the fact pattern does not fit what is normal or routine in a diocese. It was thanks to two things you wrote that I knew that what your father said may, in fact, be exactly what happened.

I provided information on this which I hoped could clarify things a bit but it was pulled.

Perhaps it’s for the best.

God Bless you, Father!

 

[otjm]

As was the case with my Father, there are priests who will say, “Listen, those annulments take forever. Let me just marry you since you are clearly in love.”

Everyone wants to be liked. It’s human nature. It’s hard for priests to take the hard line and tell people to wait for months or years or to live as brother and sister.

Many priests will be faithful even unto death, but sadly there are also many who will cave to pressure.

There is one priest who apparently said that. I knew some priests who might have likewise said that, but they have either retired and are in the 80s+, or have gone on to their judgement. I think it is a bit beyond anyone’s experience to say that there are many priests who will “cave in”. That is an extremely strong statement to be saying about our priests, one that borders on libel. I understand you are upset, and I do not suggest wrongfully so; but that simply is an inappropriate statement unless you can back it up with facts.

There are about 17,000 priests in the US. Many? 5,000? 2,000? 750? 250?

10?
The comment is inappropriate, at the minimum.