Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[JimG]

kyrie03;13895695:

You use the word “correct”, as if this is a teaching document.

It isn’t. Among other things, it is an invitation to look further at the issue of divorced and remarried couples. I will repeat; no doctrine has been changed; no rule has been revoked; not discipline has been set in place.

as he intends the conversation to continue, at the appropriate time he will fulfill your wishes for greater clarity. That won’t be until the conversation is concluded.

a good portion of people being upset is that they presume that if a document comes forth from the Vatican, it is a teaching document. This one is not. It is a reflection. It is pastoral in nature, not didactic.

there have been comments made by this pope which have been taken out of context by the secular press - which should be the first clue to those who have been getting upset about them. strangely, that seems to pass right over people’s heads without ruffling a hair. And so what we get are knee-jerk reactions. /coupled with thqat have been some rather pointed comments towards people who put law above charity; and Christ spoke repeatedly in the Gospels about that, as well as directly violating some of the Jewish laws - for example, work on the Sabbath. And people have come borderline unglued, demanding that the Pope be more specific.

He didn’t have to be more specific with me - I got the message.

I think part of your confusion stems from an underlying presumption that this is a teaching document. maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see how else I can explain it.

And I strongly suspect that if some of those who are so upset were to sit down with Francis for maybbe 2 minutes and unload their anxiety at him, he would look at them a bit with the look of “Where are you coming from?” and answer them “Well of course not” to their question of divorced and remarried suddenly being admitted to Communion.

As to your final paragraph, I’m sure such a reply would set at ease some of the moral theologians and bishops who have written about the exhortation. It’s not simply a matter of the secular press getting things wrong; it’s that members of the hierarchy have given conflicting interpretations of the document.

 

[kyrie03]

otjm13895695:

You use the word “correct”, as if this is a teaching document.

It isn’t. Among other things, it is an invitation to look further at the issue of divorced and remarried couples. I will repeat; no doctrine has been changed; no rule has been revoked; not discipline has been set in place.

as he intends the conversation to continue, at the appropriate time he will fulfill your wishes for greater clarity. That won’t be until the conversation is concluded.

a good portion of people being upset is that they presume that if a document comes forth from the Vatican, it is a teaching document. This one is not. It is a reflection. It is pastoral in nature, not didactic.

there have been comments made by this pope which have been taken out of context by the secular press - which should be the first clue to those who have been getting upset about them. strangely, that seems to pass right over people’s heads without ruffling a hair. And so what we get are knee-jerk reactions. /coupled with thqat have been some rather pointed comments towards people who put law above charity; and Christ spoke repeatedly in the Gospels about that, as well as directly violating some of the Jewish laws - for example, work on the Sabbath. And people have come borderline unglued, demanding that the Pope be more specific.

He didn’t have to be more specific with me - I got the message.

I think part of your confusion stems from an underlying presumption that this is a teaching document. maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see how else I can explain it.

And I strongly suspect that if some of those who are so upset were to sit down with Francis for maybbe 2 minutes and unload their anxiety at him, he would look at them a bit with the look of “Where are you coming from?” and answer them “Well of course not” to their question of divorced and remarried suddenly being admitted to Communion.

So…if something is “pastoral” as opposed to “teaching” originating from the Magisterium about doctrinal matters (sacraments), it isn’t necessary to be “correct”?

 

[kyrie03]

otjm13895695:

there have been comments made by this pope which have been taken out of context by the secular press - which should be the first clue to those who have been getting upset about them. strangely, that seems to pass right over people’s heads without ruffling a hair. And so what we get are knee-jerk reactions. /coupled with thqat have been some rather pointed comments towards people who put law above charity; and Christ spoke repeatedly in the Gospels about that, as well as directly violating some of the Jewish laws - for example, work on the Sabbath. And people have come borderline unglued, demanding that the Pope be more specific. .

Are you charitably trying to tell me that I have a knee-jerk reaction, put the law above charity, and have become borderline unglued? I don’t mind those labels, I’d just rather discuss the debate at hand instead of being distracted by unimportant impressions.

 

[otjm]

otjm;13895797:

So…if something is “pastoral” as opposed to “teaching” originating from the Magisterium about doctrinal matters (sacraments), it isn’t necessary to be “correct”?

A teaching sets out things clearly and delineates all the perimeters.

A pastoral document may well set out a discussion to be further pursued.

Did you read my comment in another thread directed to you, re: Cardinal Muller’s comments?

Elsewhere there has been a question of whether or not there may be a schism in Germany. I presume the Pope is well aware of that, and from the Cardinal’s comments, the Pope is directing his Exhortation not just to Germany but to the world; with a clear understanding that he is not trying to trigger a schism, but rather to find a way to work with those on the left who are at the risk of free-fall.

You may not like the way he is doing it, but a) you are not the Pope, and b) you don’t have to deal with the fall-out.

You are welcome to criticize the Pope as much as you want; it appears he is trying to deal with issues that you have no say in. I am willing to sit and watch, rather than go into a tizzy because he takes an approach that many don’t like. But Many are not responsible for results, so it is easy to make profound pronouncements as to how he sold have done it.

 

[otjm]

otjm;13895797:

Are you charitably trying to tell me that I have a knee-jerk reaction, put the law above charity, and have become borderline unglued? I don’t mind those labels, I’d just rather discuss the debate at hand instead of being distracted by unimportant impressions.

You can dismiss the impressions as unimportant; while you are spinning electrons, people like Cardinal Muller are answering your objections, and you seem to not have seen his comments.

You have a single focus, and I am not saying your focus in the greater discussion is wrong. What I am saying is that you have such a focus you cannot see anything else, and it should be clear there are other issues on the table. In fact, that should have been clear with the first synod; and while many understood that the far left in Germany were off the rails, few seemed to have any clue as to what should come next. In fact, some seemed to take the approach that what was needed was a big stick of “This is the Law!” and that the big stick needed to be used to beat the far left about the head and shoulders.

A good reading of what Cardinal Muller had to say 3 days ago might be instructive, if those who want “Justice”, aka the Big Stick", could go back and read the Gospel comments about the 99 sheep and the one.

My comments are not particularly directed to you, but rather to the many who are so upset with the Exhortation. There is an old phrase that there are more flies drawn to honey than to vinegar, and it parallels what I a trying to say. I have seen absolutely nothing which would indicate that this Pope is anything but a very good and holy person, and is striving to carry the mantle handed on down through the ages from Peter. He is dealing with a country (and not the only one in Europe, if what I read is true) that in essence is part of the Flat Earth Society and is in mortal danger of stepping off the edge. I see him trying to deal with them; and you don’t seem to see it.

Much beyond that, I cannot help. But we both need to keep him in prayer.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe in some specific cases, but generally, I don’t see the absolute moral norms in the case of slavery, torture or capital punishment.

Those are not the topic here, so I will not explain this. However, I have extensively done this in the area of capital punishment. Absolute truth does not always give yes or no answers to complex situations.

 

[pnewton]

That is the Roman Catholic position, but the Eastern Orthodox would disagree…

So what? An error in the beginning affects everything. I will not explain as this is not the apologetics forum. “Catholics are wrong,” is not a good argument here.

 

[pnewton]

Permanence, fidelity, openness to life. These are not ideals. They are what marriage is.

They are ideals. How can I show this? Simple. An act of infidelity does not end the marriage. Fidelity is what marriage is and it is an ideal. So what should the spouse of an unfaithful partner do? Or for that matter, was does the partner, the priest, the family do? The do not see the marriage at an end, but a legitimate marriage that has fallen short of the ideal.

 

[pnewton]

kyrie03;13894985:

There are over 2,000 bishops, and how many have spoken up about being confused - one tenth of one percent? .

This is anecdotal, but it is the only relevant opinion to me. My own bishop has written about the document twice. He is still in Chapter 4 in unpacking it. I admire his wisdom in avoiding this hasty rush to condemn the Pope, but he has always been a loyal son of the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is anecdotal, but it is the only relevant opinion to me. My own bishop has written about the document twice. He is still in Chapter 4 in unpacking it. I admire his wisdom in avoiding this hasty rush to condemn the Pope, but he has always been a loyal son of the Church.

This is precisely the point.

There are many ways that we may find ourselves as companions on a journey with the people who are the object of the Pope’s solicitude.

As a priest, I find it bizarre that so many of those who are fretting and spilling so much ink over this exhortation – which I have quite gladly received as both priest and theologian – are, in fact, people who do not have the cura animarum and are not therefore going to be providing pastoral care to these people at all.

The bishops and the presbyterates will be the ones to implement this post synodal exhortation…and it is already bearing good fruit. The bishops and the theological community will be the ones to carry forward the theological dialogue with the Pope and with the dicasteries of the Holy See.

As I have said before, this is not an “end” document…this is only a beginning document.

 

[Ender]

As a priest, I find it bizarre that so many of those who are fretting and spilling so much ink over this exhortation – which I have quite gladly received as both priest and theologian – are, in fact, people who do not have the cura animarum and are not therefore going to be providing pastoral care to these people at all.

This position seems not dissimilar to the argument used in support of same-sex “marriages”: to wit “our marriage has no effect on your marriage.” What affects the meaning of marriage affects us all, it is not just between those who run afoul of its laws and those who adjudicate them. The problem can be seen in this exchange:JimG: Permanence, fidelity, openness to life. These are not ideals. They are what marriage is.
pnewton: They are ideals.
It seems to be no small matter which position is correct. To that point, it is surely true that while one act of infidelity does not invalidate a marriage, a marriage would be invalid if there was never the intent to be faithful in the first place. Jim’s assertion is accurate: permanence, fidelity, and openness to life are all requirements. Is it not true that if any one of them was absent when the contract was formed the marriage is invalid? And if they are requirements for a marriage to exist in the first place it would seem they are a good bit more than simply ideals.

The bishops and the presbyterates will be the ones to implement this post synodal exhortation…and it is already bearing good fruit.

Since there is already a divergence of opinion among the bishops about how this exhortation is to be implemented, meaning there will in all likelihood be rather significant differences between dioceses, it would appear that not all the fruit is good. It is never good when the church is divided over an issue.

The bishops and the theological community will be the ones to carry forward the theological dialogue with the Pope and with the dicasteries of the Holy See.

Yes, they will, just as the dialogue will be carried on among the laity, with the likely result that the divisions will only grow.

As I have said before, this is not an “end” document…this is only a beginning document.

Given there are still people who haven’t conceded that the discussion over the ordination of women is ended, it really doesn’t seem all that beneficial to deliberately imply that even more of the church’s ancient teachings are open for “adjustment.”

Ender

 

[kyrie03]

otjm;13895137:

This is anecdotal, but it is the only relevant opinion to me. My own bishop has written about the document twice. He is still in Chapter 4 in unpacking it. I admire his wisdom in avoiding this hasty rush to condemn the Pope, but he has always been a loyal son of the Church.

It’s frustrating that a request for clarification is still being mostepresented as a rush to condemnation of His Holiness.

In Christian charity, I also hold that Pope Francis is trying to be a loyal son of the Church.

To point out that the Pope is the guardian, preserver, and teacher of doctrine as it has been handed down to him by his predecessors and that what he is now saying seems to contradict what was clearly taught universally by the Magisterium is a defense of the office of the Papacy and a defense of already defined tradition that directly impacts doctrine.

 

[kyrie03]

otjm;13897746:

A teaching sets out things clearly and delineates all the perimeters.

A pastoral document may well set out a discussion to be further pursued.

Agreed…the teaching regarding Communion for D&R has already been clearly defined as practiced by the faithful since Apostolic times and clearly reiterated, in recent history, by Pope John Paul II in FM Apostolic Exhortation.

Pope Francis’ pastoral AL Exhortation is causing a scandalous discussion because it isn’t clear. I am pointing out the clearly defined doctrine and the practices that uphold that doctrine that are coming under the attack of change. The discussions give the incorrect impression to the faithful that the indissolubility of marriage and proper disposition for reception of Communion is changeable.

 

[Barricade]

I don’t understand what is going on with the Church in recent decades, it feels like documents coming out of the Church are filled with more obfuscation than clarification as if there is a ridiculous concern to appear in a good light in the eyes of the popular press that really has no respect for Catholic teaching.

The fact that there is anything BUT a clear message from the Church as it pertains to this synod is rather disgraceful, it’s leading to needless confusion and no doubt immorality. How many divorced and remarried couples have already gone up to receive due to the confusion about the synod on the family? Why is it so hard to close the book on an issue that was never up for change to begin with?

We know AL does not permit divorced and remarrieds to receive communion, but why not come out and say so in the simplest, clearest, and boldest terms so that even the most uninformed among Catholics know without a doubt where the Church stands?

 

[kyrie03]

otjm13897746:

You may not like the way he is doing it, but a) you are not the Pope, and b) you don’t have to deal with the fall-out.

You are welcome to criticize the Pope as much as you want; it appears he is trying to deal with issues that you have no say in. I am willing to sit and watch, rather than go into a tizzy because he takes an approach that many don’t like. But Many are not responsible for results, so it is easy to make profound pronouncements as to how he sold have done it.

Agreed that I am insignificant, especially in comparison to our Holy Father.

I do have to deal with the fallout because I am one of the faithful. My children will have even more difficulty distinguishing what is true and holding firmly on to all the truths God has revealed. I take seriously the responsibility before God to hand on, unchangeable, the truths necessary for my children’s salvation.

Please stop judging that I am criticizing the Pope. I DO have a say because I recognize a change in practice does diirectly affect the doctrine…so did Pope John Paul II…is his Exhortation also criticizing Pope Francis?

 

[kyrie03]

There are many ways that we may find ourselves as companions on a journey with the people who are the object of the Pope’s solicitude.

As a priest, I find it bizarre that so many of those who are fretting and spilling so much ink over this exhortation – which I have quite gladly received as both priest and theologian – are, in fact, people who do not have the cura animarum and are not therefore going to be providing pastoral care to these people at all.

The bishops and the presbyterates will be the ones to implement this post synodal exhortation…and it is already bearing good fruit. The bishops and the theological community will be the ones to carry forward the theological dialogue with the Pope and with the dicasteries of the Holy See.

As I have said before, this is not an “end” document…this is only a beginning document.

Father, thank you for your service for the Church! May God continue to bless you and those you attempt to lead to the Heavenly Kingdom!
I also have care over the souls of the children entrusted by God to my care. Like Pope John Paul II, I see a change in the practice for Communion for D&R affecting their belief in indissolubility of marriage and proper ordering of selves in communing with Body and Blood of Christ.
Can you unpack for me how a discussion about changing the practice conforms to what Pope John Paul II received from his predecessors and handed down to his successor?

 

[JimG]

They are ideals. How can I show this? Simple. An act of infidelity does not end the marriage. Fidelity is what marriage is and it is an ideal. So what should the spouse of an unfaithful partner do? Or for that matter, was does the partner, the priest, the family do? The do not see the marriage at an end, but a legitimate marriage that has fallen short of the ideal.

Permanence. Fidelity, Openness to Life. The essential elements of marriage.

More and more it seems to me that in practice, marriage has changed. It was once possible, when asked the question “Do you John, take Mary as your lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold, in good times and in bad, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, and only death can separate you?” to answer, “I do” with a permanent will to do what is promised.

Now, though the vows may be the same, it seems the meaning is no longer, “Yes, I’ll do that.” but rather, “Well, I give it my best shot.”

I was reading an article by David Warren wherein he notes that the idea of “fealty” to another person or an institution has become rather incomprehensible to the modern mind. And fealty is similar to fidelity. One is faithful until death. One pledges fealty till death.

But while modern marrriage couples pledge fidelity to each other, Warren notes that “the “partners” must be “equal,” and the bond remains voluntary both before and after the ostentatious public ceremony. The whole profession of fidelity can be quickly canceled, without ceremony. One needn’t go to Las Vegas any more, and the only vexed question will be who gets what.”

So while fidelity may still be pledged, it now means something less than “permanent” and is easily canceled.

To the extent that the essential elements of marriage have become ideals to be sought after, often unsuccessfully, rather than a way of life to be lived as a matter of course, marriage and family life will continue to decline.

 

[kyrie03]

This position seems not dissimilar to the argument used in support of same-sex “marriages”: to wit “our marriage has no effect on your marriage.” What affects the meaning of marriage affects us all, it is not just between those who run afoul of its laws and those who adjudicate them. The problem can be seen in this exchange:JimG: Permanence, fidelity, openness to life. These are not ideals. They are what marriage is.
pnewton: They are ideals.
It seems to be no small matter which position is correct. To that point, it is surely true that while one act of infidelity does not invalidate a marriage, a marriage would be invalid if there was never the intent to be faithful in the first place. Jim’s assertion is accurate: permanence, fidelity, and openness to life are all requirements. Is it not true that if any one of them was absent when the contract was formed the marriage is invalid? And if they are requirements for a marriage to exist in the first place it would seem they are a good bit more than simply ideals.
Since there is already a divergence of opinion among the bishops about how this exhortation is to be implemented, meaning there will in all likelihood be rather significant differences between dioceses, it would appear that not all the fruit is good. It is never good when the church is divided over an issue.
Yes, they will, just as the dialogue will be carried on among the laity, with the likely result that the divisions will only grow.
Given there are still people who haven’t conceded that the discussion over the ordination of women is ended, it really doesn’t seem all that beneficial to deliberately imply that even more of the church’s ancient teachings are open for “adjustment.”

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, thank you for your service for the Church! May God continue to bless you and those you attempt to lead to the Heavenly Kingdom!
I also have care over the souls of the children entrusted by God to my care. Like Pope John Paul II, I see a change in the practice for Communion for D&R affecting their belief in indissolubility of marriage and proper ordering of selves in communing with Body and Blood of Christ.
Can you unpack for me how a discussion about changing the practice conforms to what Pope John Paul II received from his predecessors and handed down to his successor?

With all due respect: no. I am not engaging in discussions with the lay faithful on the issue of the post-synodal exhortation at all and I actually decline all invitations to do so. I follow this thread simply because it is helpful to me and gives me some insight, if inchoate, on what a segment of non-priests and non-theologians are saying and thinking. If anything, what I read from so many here merely affirms me in my decision.

It is one thing to have discussions in the theological community with my peers. It is another thing to participate in the meetings and discussions occurring in the presbyterate or to respond to the bishop in so far as he seeks my thoughts and insights as a priest and as a theologian. I have absolutely no interest in expressing my insights beyond those two realms.

 

[pnewton]

To the extent that the essential elements of marriage have become ideals to be sought after, often unsuccessfully, rather than a way of life to be lived as a matter of course, marriage and family life will continue to decline.

First, let me say I liked what you wrote. It was very well said. I only wish to address this last part. Marriage as an ideal and a lifestyle are not incompatible. In fact, it is essential to have the ideal to have the lifestyle, just like one needs the ideal of a healthy weight to diet, or the ideal of the lane to drive. If one runs off the road, it makes more sense to get on it than it does to abandon ever driving again. If one sins against the marriage, it is the very ideal of what marriage is supposed to be that motivates one to return to the true course.

Amoris Laetitia is much more about marriage than remarriage. The suggestion that it is confusing about the indissolubility of marriage is laughable. That is one point that is hammered home in this document:

The Synod Fathers noted that Jesus, “in speaking of God’s original plan for man and woman, reaffirmed the indissoluble union between them,…

The indissolubility of marriage – ‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ (Mt 19:6) – should not be viewed as a ‘yoke’ imposed on humanity, but as a ‘gift’ granted to those who are joined in marriage…

I did a quick count and found the word “indissoluble” used a dozen times as a descriptor of marriage, btw.