Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
It does disturb me how annulments are talked about. It is commonly said you need to get an annulment as if it is something you just get like a civil divorce. An annulment is something that is discovered.

Typically in those situations harm has already been done to a set of children, the first. If our society was so worried about children there wouldn’t be so much divorce in the first place. The real social concern is with the happiness of the adults.

One reason I converted was because I sought clear teachings. I was disheartened by the wide open world of mainline Protestantism. Mercy can’t exist apart from justice which requires rules. The thing is the rules really aren’t that hard. We may not like to obey them but that problem lies with us not the rules. I haven’t read the document myself so I make no judgement on its content. But I can say there are people out there searching for clear rules and not ambiguity.
Click to expand...
👍 Clear rules are needed now more than ever. We live in a very confusing world. We need guidance to help us live our lives in a way that is pleasing to God so we can be with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Heaven one day. Clear rules and clear statements would be very helpful.
 
shockerfan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus is God, so he had authority over the law of Moses. He communicated the law to Moses. And the story of the adulteress does not tell us exactly how the Church should deal with Catholics who are divorced and remarried. The Church did not exist at that time. There was no eucharist. And the Church does not punish people for their sins as the law of Moses required of the Jews. Catholics who are living in a state of sin are not threatened with punishment by the Church or the government, so how the Church treats them is not a question of mercy or condemnation. Showing mercy is one thing, but dealing with people’s situations of sin and allowing them to receive communion is another matter. Allowing people who are in sinful or improper situations to receive the eucharist is not really an act of mercy, its just an act of permission.
 
How can desecration of the Eucharist be merciful or pastoral?
 
Whether we agree with his particular positions on things or not, I like how Pope Francis is shaking things up a little and stimulating people, from the pew upwards, to pause, think and discuss (and yes, even to disagree in the process). I suspect we’ll look back on him as the Pope that got us all thinking and talking more.
 
JosieN said:
👍 Clear rules are needed now more than ever. We live in a very confusing world. We need guidance to help us live our lives in a way that is pleasing to God so we can be with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Heaven one day. Clear rules and clear statements would be very helpful.
Click to expand...
Read the Catechism for the clarity on the rules. It didn’t change, nor does Francis’ exhortation change the rules.
 
anthony022071 said:
Jesus is God, so he had authority over the law of Moses. He communicated the law to Moses. And the story of the adulteress does not tell us exactly how the Church should deal with Catholics who are divorced and remarried. The Church did not exist at that time. There was no eucharist. And the Church does not punish people for their sins as the law of Moses required of the Jews. Catholics who are living in a state of sin are not threatened with punishment by the Church or the government, so how the Church treats them is not a question of mercy or condemnation. Showing mercy is one thing, but dealing with people’s situations of sin and allowing them to receive communion is another matter. Allowing people who are in sinful or improper situations to receive the eucharist is not really an act of mercy, its just an act of permission.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin on the landing page of Catholic.com addresses this…see point #11: catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-franciss-new-document-on-marriage-12-things-to-know-and-share

lots of nuance, but I haven’t read commentary from a trusted Catholic source that says any Church teaching has changed
 
Vouthon said:
I’m reading the Exhortation at the moment and it is an incredible document. Read this:

Gotta love the Pope’s turns of phrase. “Then, goodbye…” It’s so down-to-earth right smack bang in the middle of a very profound passage 😃
Click to expand...
I see that I am not the only one who noticed this. 😉

(I am wondering, though, whether or not this is simply due to translation issues.)
 
shockerfan said:
Jimmy Akin on the landing page of Catholic.com addresses this…see point #11: catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-franciss-new-document-on-marriage-12-things-to-know-and-share

lots of nuance, but I haven’t read commentary from a trusted Catholic source that says any Church teaching has changed
Click to expand...
The article doesn’t address the things I wrote about.

My point was that the the story of Jesus and the adulteress does not instruct the Church about how to deal with divorced and remarried Catholics with regard to the question of receiving communion and being in full communion with the Church, and that it is not a question of whether to show mercy or to condemn but giving permission or refusing permission. The word mercy is being used for treatment that is not merciful but welcoming and condoning. Mercy is about doing good to people who are suffering or under threat of punishment. It isn’t about simply overlooking people’s sins and irregular relationships and welcoming them as if nothing is wrong. That may be magnanimity, but its not mercy.

The teaching of the Church on marriage and sexuality and communion hasn’t changed, but the new teaching about mercy, which is not really mercy, practically overrules it.
 
exnihilo said:
One reason I converted was because I sought clear teachings. I was disheartened by the wide open world of mainline Protestantism. Mercy can’t exist apart from justice which requires rules.
Click to expand...
I came into the Catholic Church because I got tired of going from Protestant church to Protestant church looking for substance. The mainline churches seemed to be “chasing fashion” on social issues and the evangelical churches seemed to be “chasing fashion” in worship style. It took a grand total of one Mass to convince me that the RCC was the place to be. Substance + Form = 👍
 
It really is amazing watching reactions to this across the spectrum. I’m seeing Catholics decrying this decision as not being clear enough and not protecting the Eucharist and Catholic marriage teaching enough. I’m seeing people satisfied with it as protecting the RCC’s teaching wonderfully while allowing for real world pastoral care. I’m seeing people decrying the decision as the “Cool Pope” not being very cool and not helping out single mothers, legitimate divorcees, gays, etc… I’m seeing those claiming “Cool Pope” has continued to be cool, progressive, and is now making the Church more inclusive and welcoming for those who’ve divorced, remarried, etc…

Seems whatever your view on this Papal Exhortation… you’ve got good amounts of company.
 
Padres1969 said:
It really is amazing watching reactions to this across the spectrum. I’m seeing Catholics decrying this decision as not being clear enough and not protecting the Eucharist and Catholic marriage teaching enough. I’m seeing people satisfied with it as protecting the RCC’s teaching wonderfully while allowing for real world pastoral care. I’m seeing people decrying the decision as the “Cool Pope” not being very cool and not helping out single mothers, legitimate divorcees, gays, etc… I’m seeing those claiming “Cool Pope” has continued to be cool, progressive, and is now making the Church more inclusive and welcoming for those who’ve divorced, remarried, etc…

Seems whatever your view on this Papal Exhortation… you’ve got good amounts of company.
Click to expand...
Our church is fractured. And this type of ambiguity does not help us be unified.
 
Padres1969 said:
It really is amazing watching reactions to this across the spectrum. I’m seeing Catholics decrying this decision as not being clear enough and not protecting the Eucharist and Catholic marriage teaching enough. I’m seeing people satisfied with it as protecting the RCC’s teaching wonderfully while allowing for real world pastoral care. I’m seeing people decrying the decision as the “Cool Pope” not being very cool and not helping out single mothers, legitimate divorcees, gays, etc… I’m seeing those claiming “Cool Pope” has continued to be cool, progressive, and is now making the Church more inclusive and welcoming for those who’ve divorced, remarried, etc…

Seems whatever your view on this Papal Exhortation… you’ve got good amounts of company.
Click to expand...
It seems that some LGBT people were certainly disappointed although he avoided certain kinds of terms such as “intrinsic moral evil” or “objectively disordered.” On the other hand, according to the Washington Post, "he noted that unconventional unions do indeed form. And they are not, he wrote, without their ‘constructive elements’”.
 
shockerfan said:
Read the Catechism for the clarity on the rules. It didn’t change, nor does Francis’ exhortation change the rules.
Click to expand...
What about leaving important things out?

Here’s what the Guardian has to say about the “greater acceptance of gay men, lesbians…”

Quote:
The church’s traditional definition of same-sex relationships as “intrinsically disordered” is notably absent from the exhortation, however.

Martin Pendergast, a Catholic LGBT activist in London, said the tone marked a new approach. The pope “clearly recognises the existence and experience of people in same-sex unions, although it’s still not willing to equate such unions with marriage. But the door is still open. Conservatives won’t like this document,” he said.

theguardian.com/world/201…atholic-church
 
Life cannot be reduced to a couple of bullet points, and neither can pastoral care.

Why is it that people can accept that physics, chemistry, mathematics and pretty much every professional discipline are complex and filled with nuance, but insist that the much more important topics of theology and pastoral care for real human persons must be something that can be reduced to third grade level black and white check lists? The Church must deal with life as it is, and life is filled with nuance, ambiguity and complications.
 
Thorolfr said:
It seems that some LGBT people were certainly disappointed although he avoided certain kinds of terms such as “intrinsic moral evil” or “objectively disordered.” On the other hand, according to the Washington Post, "he noted that unconventional unions do indeed form. And they are not, he wrote, without their ‘constructive elements’”.
Click to expand...
The truth is that even though he doesn’t say much at all about homosexuality in this lengthy, lengthy Exhortation, what he does say is the kindest thing that an official Catholic Church document has ever had to say about homosexuality. I’ve only read about 2/3 of it but he does say that same sex unions have value - the one he names is “stability.”

It might not seem like much but it’s a far cry from “sodomy” and “intrinsically disordered” and “lifestyle choice.”

I mean did you honestly ever think you would live to see the day when a Pope recognized a same sex union in a positive way?
 
PatrickSebast said:
The problem is ambiguity of my grammatical structure sorry. The ‘they’ was referring to the subject of ‘Hard Fast Rules’ not the people.
Click to expand...
Grammar will not save you in this instance. The interpretation flaw is present in both cases, rules and people. “Hard and fast rules” are not mentioned in the Papal exhortation, nor is anything like “are not in the spirit of or to the benefit of the Church.” This is not what was said at all.

There are still rules and consequences; what is being said is that there will be compassion to help people through the pain of the consequences of sin, back into the embrace of the Mother Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top