Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[pnewton]

I get why some people get confused.

I am not surprised at the confusion. I am disappointed by it. The document has been out less than 48 hours and already people have “strong opinions” about its problems.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Yes, he does treat it as a discipline. Also, this is the first time I have seen in Church teaching the idea of culpability being applied to this particular mortal sin, even though it has been applied to every other mortal sin.

So while one does not have to agree with Pope Francis on these points (I know one bishop that does not agree with the first point) it is rather stubborn to insist that the Pope is wrong on either of these points. If there is more than one allowable opinion (and we can disagree with the Pope) then it is all the more allowable to agree with him and very prudent to recognize he may well be righty. This is easy for me, as I agree with him. However, I have had my time of disagreement with an opinion of a Pope. I took it as my responsibility to understand what the Pope was teaching, not to argue with others about him.

 

[pnewton]

Yeah, but what if the 99 begin to feel neglected and ostracized? What if they scatter while the shepherd isn’t looking?

I think this teaching from John 21 has bearing here.

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

 

[Pulvis]

It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy.** No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here** I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. (AL 297)

can someone please explain this sentence? I am sure i was taught something about eternal damnation. I hope i am missing some subtle point.

 

[pnewton]

It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy.** No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here** I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. (AL 297)

can someone please explain this sentence? I am sure i was taught something about eternal damnation. I hope i am missing some subtle point.

Read the opening sentence of the paragraph.

It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy.

“Not being condemned forever” is in the context of the temporal work of the Church, not eternal judgment. In other words, there is no case where someone should be ex-communicated for life. Also, the following sentence shows the natural limitation of what is possible.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And then when that priest moves on to another parish the new priest could determine that grave fault does exist. Its much much much better to let the tribunal process play out here. Matt 18:17 even pope francis points this out.

I can easily see a priest become aware of a couple that may be in an irregular situation. The first question could be, “when was your annulment denied?” If the answer is that the process never occurred one would conclude the couple needs to be coaxed along the path of Mercy and given full instruction on the teachings of the Church. If their first marriages were considered valid, then the must do as Chirst said, “sin no more”. Are we talking about the abolishment of the tribunal annulment process?

DJ I am just dealing with the new reality that AL fairly clearly allows.

And I do not really agree that the Tribunal process is a much better process for the types of cases Popes Benedict and Francis have put before us which cannot be solved by the Tribunal. They acknowledge the Tribunal cannot resolve these cases. We are not talking about cases with clear cut appreciation of serious fault on the part of the claimant in question are we?

BTW I think we need to observe that Tribunals “deny annulments” for a variety of reasons.
Some simply expire because the process is stalled (the client doesn’t have enough money to complete it, she cannot get witnesses to testify to what is reasonably known to be true and which would grant the annulment if such evidence could be coerced).

A Tribunal, as I understand it, cannot prove the first marriage is undeniably valid.
All it can do is make a decision, on available evidence presented, whether a strong argument for invalidity exists, is robustly evidenced and should be so declared.

If it fails simply due to lack of robust evidence…we have a long term problem Housten.
Just as Pope Benedict has been observing since he was a Cardinal.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your statement is borderline a straw man argument. I would conclude those instances you listed above as a rare.

Unfortunately Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis disagree with your fallible observation.

They have been saying for years that Tribunals do let significant numbers of otherwise faithful Catholics down in this regard.

Just do a bit of research, the relevant qutoes have been discussed a lot since the Synod if you check other threads on this forum.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, he does treat it as a discipline. Also, this is the first time I have seen in Church teaching the idea of culpability being applied to this particular mortal sin, even though it has been applied to every other mortal sin.

So while one does not have to agree with Pope Francis on these points (I know one bishop that does not agree with the first point) it is rather stubborn to insist that the Pope is wrong on either of these points. If there is more than one allowable opinion (and we can disagree with the Pope) then it is all the more allowable to agree with him and very prudent to recognize he may well be righty. This is easy for me, as I agree with him. However, I have had my time of disagreement with an opinion of a Pope. I took it as my responsibility to understand what the Pope was teaching, not to argue with others about him.

PN I would have to say I regularly find your comments on CA to be unusually balanced and insightful. What is your theological background if I might ask. Do PM me if you wish.

For myself I would also suggest that objectively contravening Jesus’s teaching on the Indissolubility of Christian marriage by entering into an irregular marriage is, objectively, not at the same grave level as killing or fornication or simple adultery (ie an extra marital affair). Also, the gravity (like theft) is much more sensitive to circumstance.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The apostolic exhortation leads the divorced/civilly remarried to believe they might in good conscience now start receiving Communion.

Do you know who the lost sheep are according to the Fathers of the Church?

How on earth would a Catholic of good will, let alone a non Christian, sanely get that reading from AL or anything that Pope Francis has written specifically on the issue of the remarried and Communion.

Have you not read what the Accompanyment process actually involves?

 

[otjm]

No. I was never treated as a second class citizen, nor was anyone else I knew who was divorced and remarried treated as such. The only place I was made to feel like I should wear a sign that said “Unclean” was in an SSPX chapel. I lived in fear that someone would find out I had been married before and had an annulment. But never in my parish, nor any other parish we attended, was I made to feel that way.

Nor would it ever have occurred to me to treat anyone else like that. Honestly, in this day and age, who cares? That’s the least of our concerns today.

If you have not been subjected to such treatment, then you are blessed. I have known those who have been so treated; in part because I am involved with Catholics Returning Home. When people are treated thus and stay in, it is sad; when they are treated thus and leave the Church, it is heart breaking.

And not all such treatment comes from other parishioners. On a recent thread (this one or another; I am not searching for the comment right now), a poster commented that they knew a priest who would not even send any cases to the tribunal; alegedly because the tribunal was so liberal that “it passed 100% of the cases”.

Considering that tribunals, as I understand it, do not release information as to how many cases do not achieve a decree of nullity, I find the comment at the minimum suspicious; but if the priest is failing to work with people to start the proces, if that is actually true, then that priest and his bishop need to have a “come to Jesus meeting”.

We need to keep in mind who the exhortation is written to: bishops and their priests. That is not to say that the laity has no business reading it (thought the likelihood of someone divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity reading it is somewhere between “unlikely” and “never going to happen”). But it is not written to us pew warmers. It is written to those who have pastoral responsibilities to their parishioners.

And hopefully, those bishops and priests, who actually have studied a bit more moral theology than many, if not most of the posters abusing electrons over this, will take it to heart.

 

[djames99]

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.

There are many paths that can be traced to the original error. For some Catholics the first error is to remain outside the Church, or, to not practice and learn what is obligatory for him as a member. This endeavor to learn this from a recommended Catholic source would lead him through the various corridors of Church teachings on related topics, and reveal to him the correct definition of marriage, who can validly administer the Sacraments, and who is the ideal spouse. It would explain that a long non sexual engagement is the ideal, and that co habitation is forbidden, and the occasions of sin are to be watched for.

The error follows into compounding where the devil exploits the disinterest and recommends they seek advice from a minister of another church, a civil marriage clerk, or from a non Catholic fiance. We can see how compounding creates a downward spiral into an unhappy life and events. It is here that they expect someone to “fix” the problem, to unravel and undo all the wrong turns. They think, “Surely, the Church is useless because it won’t change the laws for me and make everything better again”. This is a repeated pattern seen over again.

 

[pnewton]

How on earth would a Catholic of good will, let alone a non Christian, sanely get that reading from AL or anything that Pope Francis has written specifically on the issue of the remarried and Communion.

Well, if by “might” we take the definition as “within the realm of human possibility,” and if by “now” we mean, well, not now, but at some time in the near future talk to the priest as outlined by the bishop, then it might be taken that way. I am not talking so much about insanity, but stretching words too far.

 

[Pug]

Unfortunately Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis disagree with your fallible observation.

They have been saying for years that Tribunals do let significant numbers of otherwise faithful Catholics down in this regard.

Just do a bit of research, the relevant qutoes have been discussed a lot since the Synod if you check other threads on this forum.

I spent awhile searching, but could not find these quotes. I need a little more to go on for the search terms (or a really huge amount of time to read). Do you have anything specific?

However, just thinking of other countries with less infrastructure than mine, I imagine having to get access to a tribunal to remarry is a large impediment. They aren’t as well funded and distances are large and people might not have a car, and documents might be impossible to procure, etc. The process might seem a pie in the sky, and not merely a one or two year difficult journey.

 

[JosieN]

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.

Here is what he actually said as reported in the newspapers.

The Church defines the ideal relationship as a heterosexual marriage. But Francis writes that other loving relationships can have value too.

“

Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church, is fully realized in the union between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other in a free, faithful and exclusive love, who belong to each other until death and are open to the transmission of life, and are consecrated by the sacrament, which grants them the grace to become a domestic church and a leaven of new life for society. Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way. The Synod Fathers stated that the Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage.”

The last sentence is being interpreted in many different ways. To everyone reading it can be whatever they want it to mean.

 

[Pug]

The whole gist of the exhortation seems to being telling families that mercy means walking with the marginalized, the sinful, the neglected. I agree with those sentiments. But love for neighbor means loving him because you see Christ in the neighbor. You are willing to lay down your life for your neighbor to help him repent because love of God is the ultimate end.

Judgmental, stone-throwing legalists who could care less about causing more pain to the beaten and bloodied are the real threat to families, it would seem. I don’t know anyone who would intentionally act in that manner, although I’m sure some people can be found who feel they’ve been treated that way (regardless of whether or not their analysis is how God also sees it).

Proper ordering of mercy, love, and law in the exhortation; placing what we owe God as the impetus for actions (regarding Communion), is missing. THAT is what is perpetrating the confusion.

Like you, I don’t have a grasp for what drew forth the stone throwing thing or what exact behavior is in mind. Of course one lovingly helps the neighbor repent. I don’t think I have enough info to attribute an imbalance to the exhortation, though, without more study time than I have. But as you point out, justice (acting so as to give due to God and neighbor), is important. I can’t say it is missing from the letter. To acknowledge the suffering a person has experienced and to tread with care so as to not cause unnecessary stumbling is an example of justice.

 

[dcana]

Those then point back the catechism 1735 by way of Evangelli Gaudium that speaks to reduced culpability for social reasons. The foot note says that “with regard to sacramental discipline, … discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” That could be interpreted as saying that a pastor can meet with a couple that is remarried w/o an annulment and say that they have reduced culpability simply because societal norms allow for remarriage. Because of the reduced culpability sacramental discipline might not apply to them even if it did for others.

Yes, a person may have reduced culpability through ignorance or whatever for having gotten a civil divorce and then remarried, BUT

after they learn of the Church’s teaching that every act of sexual intercourse is in fact an act of adultery (since they would be having sex with someone to whom they are not married in the eyes of God and of the Church) - in other words, once they have a properly-formed conscience, which is what the “discernment” and “accompaniment” should be all about - then any act of sexual intercourse from that point on would be a mortal sin, excluding them from Communion without prior sacramental confession. In other words, they have to live as “brother and sister” from that point until death does them part.

Is nobody else seeing this?

That is the perennial teaching of the Church and the explicit, very clear, concise, and inflexible teaching of Saint John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio #84, the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1650, and of Jesus Christ, The Lord, in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. Was Our Lord “throwing stones at people” when He gave this teaching? No, He was restoring marriage to the place it had before the Fall, that is, He was giving the Divine Plan for marriage and the family from all eternity, and raising it to the level of a Sacrament. He was giving us the Truth that sets us free, not “lifeless rules” that bind us. He was telling us that marriage is a total gift of self of the husband to the wife and of the wife to the husband, including the fact that marriage can be broken by no earthly power except death. And not only was He telling us about the true nature of marriage as a total gift of self, He was, of course, also requiring it for all who would enter into a sacramental marriage in Him. This is the teaching that St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher lost their heads for at the order of an adulterous King for upholding, along with thousands of the other English Martyrs. To go against Christ’s teaching is to go against the Law of God in a serious manner, which goes by another name: mortal sin.

In footnote #329, living as “brother and sister” in case of divorce and remarriage is described as “a possibility” and something “the Church offers them.” It is neither of those things. It is a requirement if the two people are to remain living together, as is explicitly (as opposed to ambiguously and vaguely) taught by Saint John Paul II and the Catechism in the places given above.

I ran across this wonderful quote yesterday in a piece by Carl E. Olson, quoting a book by Dorothy Sayers:

“Surely it is not the business of the Church to adapt Christ to men, but to adapt men to Christ.”

That says it all.

We need to pray for our Pope. Every day. I do, but to my shame, not every day. But I did today.

 

[dcana]

The Law of God is not an “ideal”, much less an unrealistic “ideal”. It is something given for our good, our happiness. It is something that must be kept, and moreover, can be kept, otherwise God would not have given it to us.

CANON XVIII. - If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

• Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon XVIII

I could quote basically the entire book of Psalms in support of this. Well, how about the first four verses?:

Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence. But his will is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he shall meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree which is planted near the running waters, which shall bring forth its fruit, in due season. And his leaf shall not fall off: and all whatsoever he shall do shall prosper.

What about the wicked? The one who hath walked in the counsel of the ungodly, stood in the way of sinners, sat in the chair of pestilence, and whose will is not in the law of the Lord? “Not so, not so … For the Lord knoweth the way of the just: and the way of the wicked shall perish.”

“Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

 

[dcana]

Did I kill another thread? I pray it is not so.

My main point was this:

Yes, a person may have reduced culpability through ignorance or whatever for having gotten a civil divorce and then remarried, BUT

after they learn of the Church’s teaching that every act of sexual intercourse is in fact an act of adultery (since they would be having sex with someone to whom they are not married in the eyes of God and of the Church) - in other words, once they have a properly-formed conscience, which is what the “discernment” and “accompaniment” should be all about - then any act of sexual intercourse from that point on would be a mortal sin, excluding them from Communion without prior sacramental confession. In other words, they have to live as “brother and sister” from that point until death does them part.

FWIW

 

[otjm]

I don’t either. I think its secularisms impact on the understanding of marriage.

I’m gonna wager that many do not either know or believe in the permanency of marriage when they tie the knot.

Given the abysmal state of catechesis from the early 1970’s and the day late strengthening of it 20+ years later (and not entirely across the board), that is almost a given.

And when parents In high school in the 40’s and 80’s) have little or no clue about it, and the children grow up with parents who couldn’t catechize their way out of a wet paper bag with a sharp knife, classmates whose parents are going through divorce, and the media assault of divorce and remarriage, divorce and live-ins, live-ins and no marriage, “friends with benefits”, and the rest of the sleaze that has been thrown at that generation, it should be almost a surprise when any couple of that second generation has a basic understanding.

 

[Tomdstone]

BTW I think we need to observe that Tribunals “deny annulments” for a variety of reasons…

I read that denying annulments by a Church Tribunal is not too frequent.