Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[St_Francis]

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.

Was Jesus not showing an example here on how we should approach this?

If my understanding of the document is correct, Pope Francis hasn’t changed any doctrines. The Church teaches that *if you do not obtain an annulment, the first marriage is not dissolved. *Therefore, if someone marries another and their other marriage hasn’t been annulled, that person is committing adultery. Would Jesus share Himself (communion) with a sinner (in this case an adulterer)?

I italicized the parts in each post which cause me concern.

DCana, The couple is *objectively *in mortal sin, but may not subjectively be in mortal sin.

Stylteramaldo, you misunderstand what an annulment does. The marriage is not dissolved by the annulment–a decree of nullity announces that a sacramental marriage never took place.

The ministers of marriage are the two who are getting married. The priest is not the minister of this sacrament. The Church requires that he witness and bless the marriage.

This is why previously existing marriages are only blessed by the priest, as in the case of one or both members of the couple converting.

Thus, as long as there is no decree of nullity, the first marriage is *presumed *to be valid, and it appears that the remarried couple are in a state of mortal sin.

However, if the first marriage was invalid, then it was invalid all along–the problem existed at the time of the marriage.

In which case, the “second” marriage is presumed to exist and only be in need of blessing. It is not done or re-done; it is only blessed.

This opens up pastoral aid short of the sacraments.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s so unfortunate that you see those who attempt to teach the Truths of the Catholic Church as harsh judges. We are ALL sinners. Instead of causing unnecessary divisions by pointing out faults of others, we need to humbly follow Christ Crucified. On the one hand, we cannot judge the state of another’s soul. But we can objectively call certain actions sinful - offending against God’s laws and commandments. And we can objectively say that persisting in grave sin darkens the intellect of the one discerning whether or not he/she dead or alive in the grace of God. Which is why the merciful Church, not wanting her members to eat or drink to their own condemnation, has always forbidden Communion to the divorced/civilly remarried.

See my post above, first please.

Tthe fact that a person has committed what is objectively a mortal sin does not mean they are guilty of a mortal sin and are cut off from grace, etc. However, as long as they *appear *to be in such a state, they cannot be administered the sacraments except if they are in danger of death.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The most important pastoral message the Church can give on marriage is the one seen and heard by teenagers and young adults, whose lives can be ruined if they are not sufficiently warned about the misery and heartaches which await those who don’t take marriage seriously.

Heaven forbid that the Church may inadvertently send a message to young people that marriage is a trial and error…if at first you don’t succeed lifestyle experiment.

Failed marriages, infidelity, broken homes, custody battles, alimony cheques and visitation rights ought not be thought of as ‘so common’ that we start to treat them as a normal.


#send_the_wrong_signal

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check this out regarding “mitigating factors”:

They also mentioned the Pope’s lengthy discussion of “mitigating factors” that might reduce one’s culpability for a grave sin.

“Does this imply that on a case by case basis some civilly remarried Catholics may be admitted to the Eucharist? Although there are some expressions in the text that are not entirely clear, the answer seems to be ‘no.’”

They explained that the reason that the divorced-and-remarried cannot be admitted to Communion, “which Familiaris Consortio 84 and Sacramentum Caritatis 29 affirm as based on Christ’s teaching” is “precisely not” a judgement about the person’s culpability: “Instead, it is the objective situation of living more coniugale [in a conjugal way] with a person who is not in fact one’s husband or wife.”

“Mitigating factors do not change this objective situation,” they explained. “To change a discipline of the Church rooted in doctrine and affirmed by the constant Magisterium of the Church, an explicit declaration would be necessary. This cannot be found in the apostolic exhortation. Wherever a reader may have doubts as of how to interpret a certain passage, a sound guiding principle of interpretation is to read those passages in light of the clearly affirmed doctrine of the Church. To seek ‘doctrinal novelty,’ as some claim to have found in the text, where it is not stated, is to do violence to the text.”

Healy acknowledged, at the same time, that “there is going to be a debate of interpreting just what this means.”

“One point that would be helpful for Catholic readers is to know that the reason why the Church has this discipline of not allowing civilly remarried Catholics to receive the sacrament is not on the basis of a determination that they’re in mortal sin: it’s not the subjective culpability, or even their responsibility in the failure of the marriage.”

Healy said that “once you see that, then what are presented in the document as mitigating circumstances … aren’t mitigating circumstances that open the path to receiving Communion: they’re mitigating circumstances that would allow for a more human and more charitable form of accompaniment and mercy.”

Instead of judging “a person’s subjective state, you realize the human complexity of the situation. But that’s of a different order than principles that would allow an exception to the prohibition against receiving the sacrament, because the reason for that prohibition is objective: it’s the state or condition of life.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/integration-requires-conversion-reflections-on-amoris-laetitia-88165/

 

[deaconjohnO]

DCana, The couple is *objectively *in mortal sin, but may not subjectively be in mortal sin.

.

…300
For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”. 338 These attitudes are essen- tial for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings,

A couple can only be ignorant of the mortal sin up until they are informed of the Church’s teachings because it is a requirement for the process of reintegration or it seems so.

 

[Seamus_L]

So far the picture I’m getting, and I admit the possibility that I could
very well have gotten it wrong, is that people previously denied Holy
Communion because of a second, non-sacramental marriage, or perhaps other
irregular situation, may now be allowed to take Communion after
consultation-confession with there priest, while they continue to remain for
whatever reason in that current relationship. No offense to any posters here
at CAF, but not being a theologian, I really want to hear what Cardinal
Burke, or Bishops Schneider, Hoser, Gądecki, etc has to say about this.

 

[Vouthon]

So far the picture I’m getting, and I admit the possibility that I could
very well have gotten it wrong, is that people previously denied Holy
Communion because of a second, non-sacramental marriage, or perhaps other
irregular situation, may now be allowed to take Communion after
consultation-confession with there priest, while they continue to remain for
whatever reason in that current relationship. No offense to any posters here
at CAF, but not being a theologian, I really want to hear what Cardinal
Burke, or Bishops Schneider, Hoser, Gądecki, etc has to say about this.

To me, it just looks like a case of the Latin rite of the universal Church belatedly adopting the Byzantine (Orthodox) practice of oikonomia:

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=16777.0

Oikonomia" literally means “the law of the house”.

When we speak of the “Divine Oikonomia”, we are referring to the “Divine Dispensation”- that is, the way God “runs His house” according to His Infinite Mercy. Think of it as a Infinitely Merciful Head of the House. The Incarnation, by which God suspended the Laws of Nature and condescended to become Human is an example of the Divine Oikonomia.

The Church also practices Oikonomia. Sometimes, people’s salvation is achieved by a less strict/exact (akrebia) application of the Canons of the Church…

In pastoral situations, oikonomia allows an exception to the exact letter of the law that (a) PRESERVES the principles and spirit of the law, (b) is rightfully granted by the proper ecclesiastical authority, and (c) is marked not by urgency or laxity, but by compassion and a conscientious desire to see the best possible spiritual outcome, given the realities of the pastoral situation.

That covers most of the bases, although no one can say it as well as Dr. Lewis Patsavos in his book “Spiritual Dimension of the Holy Canons”:

Unlike secular law or Mosaic law, the purpose of the Church’s law is the spiritual perfection of her members. Mere application of the letter of the law is replaced by a sense for the spirit of the law

, and adherence to its principles. This purpose is the determining factor when authority is granted to apply the law when circumstances warrant according to each individual case. The spirit of love, understood as commitment to the spiritual perfection of the individual, must always prevail in the application of the law. The abolition of the letter of the law by the spirit of the law has led to the institution of “economy,”…Through “economy,” which is always an exception to the general rule, the legal consequences following the violation of a law are lifted.

The Eastern rites have always practised this since time immemorial. We Latins have traditionally opted for the more stringent and legalistic Akriveia or “strict adherence” to the rules. Both are perfectly valid pastoral approaches, it just appears Pope Francis believes that the latter is no longer suitable for the 21st century. That’s entirely his call as the Supreme Pontiff.

So it looks like the Holy Father is “Byzantinizing” the Roman Church. That’s certainly far from being heretical or problematic theologically. It is however a threat to those “purists” who are fundamentalists for uniquely Latin theology and would like to think (erroneously) that the Latin traditions are normative for the Catholic Church. Wake up call: they aren’t.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Canon lawyer Ed Peters:

The law before ‘Amoris’ is the law after

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-law-before-amoris-is-the-law-after/

 

[maklavan]

I agree 100%. I’m tired of hearing stuff like this. It just discourages me. I wish he wouldn’t make so many vague statements that anyone can twist. He needs to make his statements so strong and clear that there’s no room for misunderstanding.

Jesus did not make strong and clear and strong statements. He spoke in parables.and his disciples had to ask him to explain.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Jesus did not make strong and clear and strong statements. He spoke in parables.and his disciples had to ask him to explain.

If only Jesus had been clear on the idea of marriage and divorce. Then we wouldn’t need to give it nuances…
Or if he had only been clear on the Eucharist being his body and blood and what state you had to be in to recieve it and what happens if you recorded unworthily.

Oh! The vagueness!

 

[kyrie03]

To me, it just looks like a case of the Latin rite of the universal Church belatedly adopting the Byzantine (Orthodox) practice of oikonomia:

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=16777.0

The Eastern rites have always practised this since time immemorial. We Latins have traditionally opted for the more stringent and legalistic Akriveia or “strict adherence” to the rules. Both are perfectly valid pastoral approaches, it just appears Pope Francis believes that the latter is no longer suitable for the 21st century. That’s entirely his call as the Supreme Pontiff.

So it looks like the Holy Father is “Byzantinizing” the Roman Church. That’s certainly far from being heretical or problematic theologically. It is however a threat to those “purists” who are fundamentalists for uniquely Latin theology and would like to think (erroneously) that the Latin traditions are normative for the Catholic Church. Wake up call: they aren’t.

I’m sure I am not the only Eastern rite Catholic who takes great offense at your “new theology”. Part of the prayer we pray prior to receiving is, “May the partaking of these Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgement or condemnation but for the healing of soul and body.” Byzantines are taught that grave sin (such as divorce and civil remarriage) prevent one from presumptously treating the Sacred Body and Life-Giving Blood with such disrespect!

*NB - a person DEAD to the life of God cannot eat spiritual food. Just as we wouldn’t feed a corpse, we don’t feed the spiritually dead. Why is such a simple concept so difficult to understand?

And yes……divorce and civil remarriage and irregular living situations outside of the sacrament of Matrimony are some of sins that kill souls. To become resurrected in the Life of God, Byzantine and Latin rite Catholics must first repent, confess, and amend their lives. No Supreme Pontiff can change that truth.

 

[JosieN]

Jesus did not make strong and clear and strong statements. He spoke in parables.and his disciples had to ask him to explain.

Please do not compare this pope to Jesus. Jesus taught the disciples and they may have asked questions and did not understand but after His death, He sent them the Holy Spirit and everything He said was understood.

People are not going to understand what this 265 page exhortation means. They will read the headlines in the newspapers or go to the internet to look it up. Then they will go to communion if they think that is OK even if they are divorced and remarried, They may or may not be sinning? Is this what this document says? t is not clear, Allowing people to sin and making them think it is not a sin is not compassionate or merciful.

 

[kyrie03]

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.

If this is indeed the case, and I agree with you, why would over 2 years with 2 Synods on the Family and an Apostolic Exhortation avoid the root cause of the problem - catechesis? Instead we get a recap of the discussions, some guidance on pastoral approaches, and fuzzy doctrine.

The children of the Church are begging for bread, not stones……

 

[JosieN]

I’m sure I am not the only Eastern rite Catholic who takes great offense at your “new theology”. Part of the prayer we pray prior to receiving is, “May the partaking of these Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgement or condemnation but for the healing of soul and body.” Byzantines are taught that grave sin (such as divorce and civil remarriage) prevent one from presumptously treating the Sacred Body and Life-Giving Blood with such disrespect!

*NB - a person DEAD to the life of God cannot eat spiritual food. Just as we wouldn’t feed a corpse, we don’t feed the spiritually dead. Why is such a simple concept so difficult to understand?

And yes……divorce and civil remarriage and irregular living situations outside of the sacrament of Matrimony are some of sins that kill souls. To become resurrected in the Life of God, Byzantine and Latin rite Catholics must first repent, confess, and amend their lives. No Supreme Pontiff can change that truth.

I understand what you are saying. It is difficult for people who don’t want to accept the truth to understand. Just as in the time of Jesus when He preached to them, there were those who believed He was the Son of God, and those who refused to believe in Him because they did not like what He said and did not want to accept the truth.

 

[TMC]

I understand what you are saying. It is difficult for people who don’t want to accept the truth to understand. Just as in the time of Jesus when He preached to them, there were those who believed He was the Son of God, and those who refused to believe in Him because they did not like what He said and did not want to accept the truth.

Have you considered the possibility that the Pope is preaching the truth, and that it is his critics that are having trouble accepting the truth?

 

[Neofight]

All the what many think should have been said leads me to the sad realization that the deeper message of the Holy Father’s exhortation, both Amoris and Laetitia have been totally missed, or totally dismissed.

 

[kyrie03]

Have you considered the possibility that the Pope is preaching the truth, and that it is his critics that are having trouble accepting the truth?

What God has revealed and what has been consistently reaffirmed by the Church cannot change. Critics are having trouble reconciling what Pope Francis seems to be saying (he’s not very clear, is he?) with what the Magisterium has already clearly taught as truth.

 

[PaulinVA]

If only Jesus had been clear on the idea of marriage and divorce. Then we wouldn’t need to give it nuances…
Or if he had only been clear on the Eucharist being his body and blood and what state you had to be in to recieve it and what happens if you recorded unworthily.

Oh! The vagueness!

Oh, the sarcasm…

 

[pnewton]

The Eastern rites have always practised this since time immemorial. We Latins have traditionally opted for the more stringent and legalistic Akriveia or “strict adherence” to the rules. Both are perfectly valid pastoral approaches, it just appears Pope Francis believes that the latter is no longer suitable for the 21st century. That’s entirely his call as the Supreme Pontiff.

My understanding of theology lacks any historical perspective. I remember when John Paul II stated that we needed to breathe with both lungs. I did not really get it. Thanks for the insight. However, the thought has occurred to me that I have heard of the principle of subsidiarity since I was Catholic. Could this exhortation be seen (the tail end of it), as a reminder to priests, as the immediate shepherd of an individual Catholic, to remember mercy, and to not abandon doctrine? That would seem rather “Latin”.

 

[otjm]

Please do not compare this pope to Jesus. Jesus taught the disciples and they may have asked questions and did not understand but after His death, He sent them the Holy Spirit and everything He said was understood.

People are not going to understand what this 265 page exhortation means. They will read the headlines in the newspapers or go to the internet to look it up. Then they will go to communion if they think that is OK even if they are divorced and remarried, They may or may not be sinning? Is this what this document says? t is not clear, Allowing people to sin and making them think it is not a sin is not compassionate or merciful.

It became much more popular for the laity to read the documents produced by the Church, after Vatican 2.

And a goodly number of those people misread those documents (and subsequent ones).

This letter is not directed to laity; it is directed to bishops, and to the priests under them. I have no doubt that some lay people may read the document, and not being capable of critical reading (as well as being grounded in the Faith), may come to erroneous conclusions.

But you seriously overstate the matter; most people in irregular marriages are not going to Mass, are not likely to go to Mass, and are therefore not going to be within the group you propose.

And prior to this document being promulgated, precious few people in irregular marriages have been going to Mass. Of the extremely few who may have been, either they were already going to Communion (so the Exhortation is irrelevant to the issue), or have been observant of the rule; which would imply that one document which they may or may not have heard a blurb about is far less likely to impact any decision, or is likely to lead them to inquire of their priest.

In other words, you posit a problem that is extremely far narrower than you imply.