Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[deaconjohnO]

I will admit. I have read and re-read paragraph 297 and beyond several times over. I am disappointed over how ambiguous it is. Actually almost distraught over how ambiguous it is.

The lack of clarity will lead to multitudes of interpretations.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Why is this lie always brought forth? They do not need to separate. They only need to stop having sex. A simple confession would solve this issue and resolving to sin no more.

Bearing false witness is a sin.

It isn’t a lie. You read something I did not say nor intend to say.

The statement I gave was :

“but struggle with the reality that living and supporting children together leads to intimacy.”

Humans have natural urges, joining together as parents is an intimate experience and while the practice of chastity is not impossible it is most certainly difficult when many other elements of marriage are present.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I will admit. I have read and re-read paragraph 297 and beyond several times over. I am disappointed over how ambiguous it is. Actually almost distraught over how ambiguous it is.

The lack of clarity will lead to multitudes of interpretations.

I think some of us were fearing worse than perhaps ambiguity.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Honestly at 264 pages with several very clear statements and expressions I am getting more solidified in my belief that most of the ‘ambiguity’ seen in Pope Francis’ teaching is imagined primarily because of the desire for rigid simple rules and expressions that he is speaking out against.

This isn’t ambiguous:

This is a theme he repeats again and again. He understands 100% that there are people who want hard fast rules and is explicitly stating that they are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.

But whether or not communion for divorced/remarried is appropriate for them or anyone in a state of a particular sin is hard and fast. If it isn’t, one could simply list the cases when it isn’t. Once can define what something is, while stressing the need for support, ministry, and a pastoral nature as well.

The Church has survived precisely because in definitive teachings that aren’t blurred. if the answer to the questions “If I am divorced and remarried without an annulment, can I receive communion?” is “that depends…”, then nothing but confusion or intentional ignorance on the part of the members.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I think some of us were fearing worse than perhaps ambiguity.

I suppose.
However I don’t think ambiguity is the teaching mission of the bride of Christ. Ambiguity does nothing to foster unity.

 

[PatrickSebast]

But whether or not communion for divorced/remarried is appropriate for them or anyone in a state of a particular sin is hard and fast. If it isn’t, one could simply list the cases when it isn’t. Once can define what something is, while stressing the need for support, ministry, and a pastoral nature as well.

The Church has survived precisely because in definitive teachings that aren’t blurred. if the answer to the questions “If I am divorced and remarried without an annulment, can I receive communion?” is “that depends…”, then nothing but confusion or intentional ignorance on the part of the members.

The long standing definitive teachings of the Church on answering this question were actually cited by Pope Francis:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and
responsibility for an action can be diminished or
even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress,
fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other
psychological or social factors”.343 In another
paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to
circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,
and mentions at length “affective immaturity,
force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety
or other psychological or social factors that lessen
or even extenuate moral culpability”.344 For
this reason, a negative judgment about an objective
situation does not imply a judgment about
the imputability or culpability of the person
involved.345 On the basis of these convictions, I
consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers
wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances
people find it very difficult to act differently.
Therefore, while upholding a general rule,
it is necessary to recognize that responsibility
with respect to certain actions or decisions is not
the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while
taking into account a person’s properly formed
conscience, must take responsibility for these situations.
Even the consequences of actions taken
are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

 

[ArchAngeles]

It’s what I expected. Ambiguity that will breed disobedience and confusion. Instead of helping families it is further damaging us. In my opinion, saying this is about the family is like calling birth control family planning or abortion a “choice”.

I’m sad.

 

[joesacco]

I figure it’s not my job to judge why the Pope is wrong but, to try to figure out why I don’t understand why he’s right. But, then again I’m not too bright. Best, Joe

 

[shockerfan]

I will admit. I have read and re-read paragraph 297 and beyond several times over. I am disappointed over how ambiguous it is. Actually almost distraught over how ambiguous it is.

The lack of clarity will lead to multitudes of interpretations.

Pope Francis is a “catechism guy”. His comments should always be read in context with the catechism. If you read paragraph 297 within context of the CCC, what is the issue?

 

[ARSpade]

Humans have natural urges, joining together as parents is an intimate experience and while the practice of chastity is not impossible it is most certainly difficult when many other elements of marriage are present.

Or, you could say, humans have temptations.

 

[sps49]

This is a theme he repeats again and again. He understands 100% that there are people who want hard fast rules and is explicitly stating that they are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.

This is breathtakingly arrogant, presumptuous and flawed interpretation you make. “Not even wrong” come to mind.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I suppose.
However I don’t think ambiguity is the teaching mission of the bride of Christ. Ambiguity does nothing to foster unity.

What is the ambiguity that we are discussing exactly? What question does this 200+ page document bring up that isn’t answered within or clarified by citation?

 

[PatrickSebast]

Or, you could say, humans have temptations.

Sexual desire is naturally ordered which makes it’s expression relatively unique from many other types and desires toward sin.

If we have a sexual desire for someone of the opposite sex that we are close with that indicates our bodies are working as intended for the most part. We can call it a temptation, but the difference between the sexual desire and the desire to steal someones wallet is that we are built to desire sex.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The long standing definitive teachings of the Church on answering this question were actually cited by Pope Francis:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and
responsibility for an action can be diminished or
even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress,
fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other
psychological or social factors”.343 In another
paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to
circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,
and mentions at length “affective immaturity,
force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety
or other psychological or social factors that lessen
or even extenuate moral culpability”.344 For
this reason, a negative judgment about an objective
situation does not imply a judgment about
the imputability or culpability of the person
involved.345 On the basis of these convictions, I
consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers
wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances
people find it very difficult to act differently.
Therefore, while upholding a general rule,
it is necessary to recognize that responsibility
with respect to certain actions or decisions is not
the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while
taking into account a person’s properly formed
conscience, must take responsibility for these situations.
Even the consequences of actions taken
are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

Yep. So in summation:

1. Teaching doesn’t change.
2. Be mindful of the difficulties faces by families in these situations, while not enabling them to sin.
3. Adopt new or different approaches to these situations as warranted while never giving the impression that what amounts to an adulterous situation (even with no ill intent by the participants) is “okay.”

Again, I suspect too many folks read the Pope’s words through the eyes of learned, knowledgeable Catholics. Those aren’t the eyes of the majority of Catholics, unfortunately. The question is how best to reach them? Exhortations that clerics find ambiguous likely aren’t the best solution.

 

[carefullytread]

I recently read that interview with Cardinal Dolan:

In fact, Dolan suggested that from a pastoral point of view, too much attention has been devoted to the Communion debate, since those Catholics who are divorced and remarried, who are still coming to Mass, and who faithfully observe the Church’s rules, represent a “distinct minority.”

“Believe me, I wish I got thousands of people at the door of the Church shouting, ‘We want Holy Communion! We want back into the Church!’” he said. “I wish they were doing that, but they’re not.”

This is very true in my experience. Any Catholic I know who has gotten divorced and remarried has either left the Church (sometimes to become a Christmas time Catholic, sometimes a ‘None’, sometimes a Protestant) or just ignores the ban on communion.

But that’s my limited personal experience, not an unbiased sample. And likewise, Dolan is in New York, so you shouldn’t be surprised that people in his diocese don’t care about the rules very much.

Is it different in other parts of the world? Are there really large masses of faithful Catholics who are divorced and remarried and care what the Church says about their situation?

 

[PatrickSebast]

This is breathtakingly arrogant, presumptuous and flawed interpretation you make. “Not even wrong” come to mind.

Uh It is pretty directly stated inside the document, what do you think I misinterpreted about this:

It is true that general rules set forth a good which
can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their
formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all
particular situations. At the same time, it must be
said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of
a practical discernment in particular circumstances
cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That
would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but
would endanger the very values which must be
preserved with special care

 

[shockerfan]

I suppose.
However I don’t think ambiguity is the teaching mission of the bride of Christ. Ambiguity does nothing to foster unity.

Think about one of Pope Francis’ favorite passages from the Bible: the story of the adulteress (John 8:3-11).

Did Jesus quote to the adulteress all of the scriptural teachings about the sinfulness of adultery? Did Jesus submit to carrying out the law and let her be stoned? Did Jesus say that the Pharisees were wrong in their assessment of the situation?

No

Also, Did Jesus tell the woman that she didn’t sin? Did he change the 6th commandment?

No

What Jesus did was show mercy and tell her to sin no more.

Now…think about what Pope Francis is trying to do. He is trying to offer people mercy, without changing any teaching on what is or is not sin, and bring as many people into God’s grace. Everybody’s situation with sin is different, and requires more than just quoting scripture if we want to follow the lead of Jesus.

 

[deaconjohnO]

What is the ambiguity that we are discussing exactly? What question does this 200+ page document bring up that isn’t answered within or clarified by citation?

Ok here is the question. Can a divorced Catholic who has entered into an “irregular” secular marriage be admitted to the Eucharist without obtaining an annulment first?

Please direct me to the document section that addresses this with clarity.

If the document does not address this question then it is not clear that it doesn’t address this.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Think about one of Pope Francis’ favorite passages from the Bible: the story of the adulteress (John 8:3-11).

Did Jesus quote to the adulteress all of the scriptural teachings about the sinfulness of adultery? Did Jesus submit to carrying out the law and let her be stoned? Did Jesus say that the Pharisees were wrong in their assessment of the situation?

No

Also, Did Jesus tell the woman that she didn’t sin? Did he change the 6th commandment?

No

What Jesus did was show mercy and tell her to sin no more.

Now…think about what Pope Francis is trying to do. He is trying to offer people mercy, without changing any teaching on what is or is not sin, and bring as many people into God’s grace. Everybody’s situation with sin is different, and requires more than just quoting scripture if we want to follow the lead of Jesus.

If that is Francis’ Favorite quote why did he use Matt 18:17 in paragraph 297. Which I think is alluding to the requirement of annulment.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Yep. So in summation:

1. Teaching doesn’t change.
2. Be mindful of the difficulties faces by families in these situations, while not enabling them to sin.
3. Adopt new or different approaches to these situations as warranted while never giving the impression that what amounts to an adulterous situation (even with no ill intent by the participants) is “okay.”

Again, I suspect too many folks read the Pope’s words through the eyes of learned, knowledgeable Catholics. Those aren’t the eyes of the majority of Catholics, unfortunately. The question is how best to reach them? Exhortations that clerics find ambiguous likely aren’t the best solution.

I respectfully disagree with the ambiguity and use I guess. Honestly I think the charge for clerics to take head of situations and make individually sensitive pastoral expressions is a positive.