Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[kyrie03]

How many Catholics knew the Church’s clear teaching on who can/cannot receive Communion?

How many of the Synod Fathers knew the clear teaching?

Will people reading the Apostolic Exhortation come to a confused understanding or a clearer understanding of the Church’s teaching on who can/cannot receive Communion?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Did you actually read the document? It seems a bit early to be sad; try reading Jimmie Akins analysis.

I am quite aware of the spin from all sides. This is the sad part. The ambiguity causes this to hurt our families and our church. As I said before. I do not envy the next pope.
What a mess.

 

[otjm]

How many Catholics knew the Church’s clear teaching on who can/cannot receive Communion?

How many of the Synod Fathers knew the clear teaching?

Will people reading the Apostolic Exhortation come to a confused understanding or a clearer understanding of the Church’s teaching on who can/cannot receive Communion?

I think you are presuming the matter was far more clear than it may have been, and from what I have read of the letter, it does not throw open the doors to a laissez faire approach.

There seem to be a plethora of self-appointed moral theologians, who after expressing their opinions, seem to know not so much moral theology as they profess.

Will there be abuses? That is a bit like asking if there have been abuses, or if human nature might suddenly have been transformed, had the pope written in the black-and-white format that some seem to long for.

He has clearly not endorsed the internal forum; but that has not in the past prevented priests from advising individuals to do so. Will this change that? I don’t see it changing anything - which means that there will likely be a priest here or there who may do so. Will they do so because of this document? Considering that they did so before the document was produced, it obviously did not depend on any document; and should they choose to do so in the future, they will not need this document to do so - and again, it does not provide the internal forum for a basis of admitting anyone to Communion. Nor is it simply a matter of being too “vague”.

Some of the issues have to do with conscience, and if you read the CCC on conscience, you might find that it makes you uncomfortable., And yes, there is a need to pursue a correctly formed conscience; and some are not capable. That ultimately is going to be between God and them.

A whole lot has been done in the past in documents that were not vague, but were “used” as a springboard for all sorts of silliness. A point that seems to be overlooked, was that the priests and bishops who went off on a tangent were all ordained before Vatican 2 - which should give pause to some commentary for a bit of reflection. Is this likely to cause the same? That craziness was two generations ago, and the priests who have been ordained in the last 20+ years have an entirely different attitude about the Church, and do not have the same issues which those ordained before Vatican 2 did. we have been seeing a return to reverence; we have seen a major increase in parishes with Adoration; and yet some seem to be carrying on a fight against what occurred 4 decades ago.

Have Catholics who are divorced been treated as second class citizens? If you have not been divorced, this is not your conversation. Is remarriage an issue? Absolutely; and a very significant number of those who have done so walked away from the Church years ago, before they remarried. Do we have a lot of work to do? Absolutely.

Does this pontiff think so? If one has been paying attention to what he has repeatedly said, he certainly seems to think so also. I have been reading the Gospels for decades; Christ did not condemn sinners, but he had some really harsh words for those who saw the Law as black and white. Is there a message here? Nowhere in the document does the Pope say that sinning is okay - and neither did Christ; but Christ did not spend a long time berating sinners, a point that seems a bit too much to manage for some.

 

[JosieN]

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?

From watching the news tonight it seems you are right, he is definitely recognizing same sex unions in a positive way. I am not sure what to think about the Church right now. Not to oppose is to approve according to Saint Felix III.

Here is his quote

“Not to oppose is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

 

[Pug]

You may be correct in the analysis that His Holiness wants to draw attention to John 15:34-35 Footnote in Haydock Bible says: This commandment was already in the old law, where it is written, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; how then does our Savior call it a new command? It is new , not because we simply love another, but because we love one another as he has loved us; not as men love one another, as being fellow creatures, but united in love, as being children of the Most High; that so we may be brethren to his only-begotten Son, bearing to all the same love, that he has borne to us. St Augustine tract 64 -By this shall I more-over know that you truly love me.

Yes, this is along the lines of what I suspect he is thinking, given what he is cross referencing, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I appreciate the reference to Haydock.

But Pope Francis references John 15:12 and Galatians 5:14 (I also include verse 13)

Take a look back at your post. You have accidentally made a snip from John 13, not John 15. For clarity, here is John 15RSV John 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

To claim that** fraternal charity is the first law of Christians** is misleading. The first law is love of God. Period. The second law merits nothing if it is not based on the first.

I feel confident the Pope does not intend to slight the Shema (the Hear O Israel passage from Deuteronomy 6:4-9). However, the use of the word “first” can bring many things to mind. The first commandment of the Decalogue, for example, could pop up easily in the mind of a Christian.

Concerning your comment about the second law meriting nothing if not based on the first, I concur that there is no right of a man to heaven apart from grace. I would like to raise two scriptures that come to my mind. The first talks somewhat about the relationship (inter-relationship?) of the two commandments that you are mentioning, and the second arises in my mind from the quote “first law of Christians” and talks about any (all?) commandments being summed up in one.RSV 1 John 4: 19 We love, because he first loved us. 20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also. 5:1 Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

RSV Romans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

This papal exhortation is easily misconstrued and abridged……especially when the love of God is absent.

I agree that it may be a hard document to get particular answers out of. I have not found this pope as easy to follow as say, JP2. Let us pray that all will read it in the light of Love of God and of neighbor.

 

[pnewton]

I can see why the headline is correct, but I think it misses the point. Pope Francis was not ambiguous. He was not unclear. Hew was quite clear that he spoke generally. I know that many Catholic prefer clear cut rules that never vary. Jesus however did not. He dealt with people as indivuals. This is the message in this exhortation about divorced and remarried people. The same doctrines apply that always apply, but the number of possible scenarios are so vast that there can be no one size fits all. Some people are in a state of mortal sin. Some are not. None are exclude from the Church. None are excommunicated.

 

[St_Francis]

I think he is saying that we need to meet individuals and families where they are and not expect them to be further along in the path of holiness. At the same time,he does not advocate watering down what the Church teaches.

I see this document as saying something the Church needs to hear: that things have gone kinda haywire. Are we going to be like Puritans putting red A’s on people (usually women)? Or are we going to invite and welcome imperfect people in, as far in as their current situation allows?

 

[otjm]

From the CNN article:

“suggests that priests should use their own discretion on whether divorced Catholics in new marriages can take Communion.”

It doesn’t actually say that, but, as you say, that’s what happens when you’re not clear. And that’s how it will be applied.

That has absolutely nothing to do with being clear or not clear; it has to do with the secular press misrepresenting what was said.

 

[otjm]

I am quite aware of the spin from all sides. This is the sad part. The ambiguity causes this to hurt our families and our church. As I said before. I do not envy the next pope.
What a mess.

I did not ask you about spin. I asked if you read the document.

You might try doing so instead of listening to everyone else.

The document is not ambiguous; it speaks to moral law which was already in place before ht synod ever started.

 

[otjm]

From watching the news tonight it seems you are right, he is definitely recognizing same sex unions in a positive way. I am not sure what to think about the Church right now. Not to oppose is to approve according to Saint Felix III.

Here is his quote

“Not to oppose is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

Why are you watching the secular news, instead of reading the document? after two years of the secular news spinning everything this pope has said - or else simply not reporting it - you should have figured out by now that what the secular press says is what it wants to hear; not what the pope actually says.

 

[otjm]

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?

Okay, since you have not understood what this pope has said, go back and read what Benedict said about gays using condoms.

It would appear that you have two categories of people - saintly and damned. what you fail to recognize is that there is a continuum; one may not have accepted or realized the sinfulness of their choice (gay sex, for the sake of the conversation).

We can all agree that gay sex is a moral wrong - and so does the pope. but as Benedict pointed out, gays using condoms are engaging in immoral secual behavior; but they have achieved at least some moral positive - not having unprotected sex and thereby being subject to the passing of AIDS.

Likewise, two homosexuals who are only sexually involved with each other are engaging in immoral sexual behavior; but that is less morally evil than the compound of multiple sexual partners.

In neither case has the gay person achieved morally correct response to sexual behavior; but they have moved in a morally positive direction; and need to continue to do so.

Morality, in spite of the cries for “black and white”, comes in shades of grey also. And people who are not moral theologians generally do not understand the nuances of human behavior. Exceedingly few of us arrive at perfect. We all have a long way to go to achieve that. Yes, sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful; and the pope has not said otherwise.

If one is in the blackest part of a hole, and starts to move toward the Light, one is still in blackness - but not as deeply in blackness as one was before; and progress needs to be acknowledged. And acknowledgement is not relativism; growth in moral behavior is slow for all of us. And we all need to know if and when we are making progress.

 

[shockerfan]

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.

I guess we see it differently. I agree that the teachings have not changed, but I would disagree that mercy (or the definition of mercy that you employ in your last sentence) overrules it.

In AL 297, it seems to me the Pope is saying “don’t just hold up a stop sign to divorced and remarried that says come no further”, rather to help the understand God’s grace in their life is still inviting them to a fuller participation in the Church. His lists examples OTHER than receiving Communion: “social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative”.

Inviting someone to receive Communion when they are not capable (i.e. living in a state of mortal sin), is not merciful.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I am quite aware of the spin from all sides. This is the sad part. The ambiguity causes this to hurt our families and our church. As I said before. I do not envy the next pope.
What a mess.

So you’re dismissing a document that you haven’t even read? Surely you must know that both sides are going to spin to their advantage regardless of what Pope Francis writes. I guess Mrs Swift is right, the haters really are gonna hate, hate, hate, hate.

 

[mikekle]

Canon lawyer Ed Condon:

Francis has left Church teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried absolutely intact

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/04/08/francis-has-left-church-teaching-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried-absolutely-intact/

Good to know, but shouldnt this really be more clear, why would we need a lawyer to ‘interpret’?..Im constantly amazed at how vague Francis is when it comes to nearly any topic.

Its no wonder why literally NO ONE is protesting anything he says or does…after any number of his speeches, no matter what your beliefs are, you could interpret his message to align with your beliefs??? lol

 

[shockerfan]

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

An “exhortation” primarily deals with pastoral issues, which is different from an Encyclical which deals with doctrine.

Leaving things out does not mean they are not important, rather it simply means other things needed to be discussed.

People are going to spin this however they want, but specifically to Martin Pendergast, I would point out:

1. God calls all people, homosexuals included
2. The teaching of God and expounded upon by its Church will never allow for same sex unions to be equated with marriage
3. Sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, fornication, lust, and yes, homosexual acts are sins, and the Pope didn’t change that teaching
4. To prove 3) simply consider that the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, and after the publication of Amoris Laetitia, I can still go to the Vatican website and find the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2357-2359 which deal with homosexuality.
   The Catechism, which deals with doctrine, did not change.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Canon lawyer Ed Condon:

Francis has left Church teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried absolutely intact

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/04/08/francis-has-left-church-teaching-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried-absolutely-intact/

Don’t believe the spin you are being fed:

“AL 300 What is possible is simply…a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”,* the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same**.(This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.)”*

This article refers to the following article in EvaneliumGaudium:
“The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness.”

Reading between the lines its pretty clear to me that Priests may eventually discern that for some couples in irregular situations no grave fault exists.

In which case it may be possible for them to receive Confession/Communion?
“[so] the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline…”

It is also pretty clear Pope Francis regards the bann on Communion for the remarried is a discipline and therefore, in some cases, exceptions are possible.

 

[shockerfan]

Good to know, but shouldnt this really be more clear, why would we need a lawyer to ‘interpret’?..Im constantly amazed at how vague Francis is when it comes to nearly any topic.

Its no wonder why literally NO ONE is protesting anything he says or does…after any number of his speeches, no matter what your beliefs are, you could interpret his message to align with your beliefs??? lol

My view is that Pope Francis realizes that for a given topic, say divorced and remarried Catholics, that there are numerous variations and variables. He wants local bishops and priests to work with each situation separately, as opposed to some “peanut butter approach”. Pope Francis believes in objective truth and the Catechism…read what the Pope says in that context.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Cool, adultery is no longer a mortal sin.

The Church has never taught that all persons in irregular marriages are committing adultery. Publicly contradicting the Church’s teaching on Indissolubility yes, adultery no, they remain silent on that point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not true, but often stated.

OK, what is your clear Magisterial source for this unusual opinion?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If your marriage can’t be annulled, you are still married to your spouse. Which means sexual activity with another is adultry, just as its been for 2000 years…

The Church has never taken the black and white logic you use here.
In fact its statements are at pains to avoid the predicate adultery when referring to those in irregular marriages who sincerely believe they were invalidly married and who have been let down by Marriage Tribunals for monetary or technical reasons.

There is a big difference between abandoning and being abandoned.