Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[St_Francis]

I think the Holy Father is nuancing the levels of culpability.

I think that it’s disingenuous say that a spouse abandoned many years ago by their spouse, with no chance of that spouse every coming back has “abandoned” him or her.

He says very clearly that each individual case is different, should be viewed on its own merits or demerits, and that it’s not a given that two spouses in a divorce are equally culpable.

A man who runs off with a colleague bears a much greater responsibility than the spouse he abandoned, for example. I can’t believe that God wants to punish the spouse left behind with a lifetime of solitude and possibly single parenthood.

The solitude and difficulties of life and even single parenthood are *not *specific, personal punishments.

Also, bad things happen to people all the time, through no fault of the sufferer’s own. It is possible to live a full and happy life without marriage. In no way does this document “permit” divorced people to remarry.

We are talking about real lives, not theological hypotheses.

 

[St_Francis]

Well put SF.

One small technical point you may appreciate.
A moral theologian would only use the verb “commit” when significant knowledge and consent was present (usually applied to true personal mortal sins).

If it was felt that personal freedom was significantly impaired such that grave matter was only imputable as venial sin (or maybe no personal sin) the word “engaged” would probably be used.

Thank you; that has always puzzled me.

 

[Brendan]

I
A man who runs off with a colleague bears a much greater responsibility than the spouse he abandoned, for example. I can’t believe that God wants to punish the spouse left behind with a lifetime of solitude and possibly single parenthood.

We are talking about real lives, not theological hypotheses.

No one remains in solitude. Living a life of continence is not the same as being in solitude. Nor is living such a life a ‘punishment’. I am surprised that you would even call it such.

As far as being left in single parenthood, God does that all the time when He calls one spouse, but leaves another on Earth.

 

[Vouthon]

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’m not sure I quite understand the (entirely unfounded) accusation you are making with regards to my alleged “new theology”.

By ‘Byzantine’ I should note that I am referring to the pastoral practice of our separated brethren in the Orthodox Churches too. As you know, on a case-by-case basis the Orthodox sometimes permit an ecclesiastical divorce and a penitential re-marriage ceremony. In the Catholic Church we do not do this (rightly IMHO) but the point remains that this is an example of the Eastern approach, which upholds the general ‘rule’ but admits of individual exception to it using a holistic approach that considers the specific situation and culpability of the human person in his or her totality.

The same extends to contraception and other issues.

As I said, the Catholic Church adheres to a somewhat higher standard on these matters but the general principle here seems to be in tune with the Eastern theological attitude. In that sense it is somewhat of an innovation in Western pastoral application but not a “new theology” as you erroneously impute.

Also, the Eastern tradition does not tend to recognise the (so-called ‘legalistic’) differentiation between ‘mortal’ and ‘venial’ sin. So I’m not quite sure if your being entirely representative of your own tradition in this respect. I remember being told by a Greek Orthodox deacon that his Church saw “sin as sin”, without the need for the same forensics as Latin theology (i.e. splitting it down and scrutinizing it scientifically). The Western Church has always been more rationalistic in its approach to theology, the East more mystical and holistic. Both are valid and important, just distinct. You seem to be adopting a Latin approach to the question.

 

[Vouthon]

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”.

Yes, you are right.

The document is not entirely ‘Eastern’ in approach, I was merely referring to that one instance.

I should also note that in the West we have a deeper understanding of how the Church’s tradition ‘develops’ without actually changing in substance. This is lacking in the Christian East, which (and I say this respectfully) can sometimes appear ‘fossilized’.

The document therefore marries an Eastern approach to sin with a Western appreciation of legitimate development of pastoral application of doctrine, within orthodox boundaries, to meet the needs of the time.

I can understand why this may appear to be ‘controversial’ to ‘traditionalist’ Latin-rite purists and some Easterners as well, therefore, since Amoris Laetitia would seem to ‘marry’ two approaches from East/West that have not usually been joined together - perhaps never been joined together. The ‘fruit’ of this conjoining is rather fascinating to me.

 

[JimG]

Are you saying that the internal forum or a pastor can discern (without an annulment) that one can presume the first marriage was invalid and so the second marriage is the one recognized by God?

It is this question that I keep wondering about. The focus seems to be on culpability. But I wonder about the status of the prior marriage. There can be varying degrees of culpability, even a total lack of culpability. But there are no degrees of validity of a prior marriage. It is either valid and permanent, or it is not.

I can understand that both the confessor and penitent might conclude that a prior marriage was invalid from the beginning, even if that cannot be demonstrated in a tribunal process. But if the internal forum is making a decision as to nullity, let us be clear that that is what is being decided. For if the prior marriage is determined to be invalid, then matters of culpability are of secondary importance.

But that also brings up the situation of the other party to the first marriage: If the marriage has been determined to be null in the internal forum, should not the other party be advised of this, since it would have a bearing on their own marital situation?

As far as I know, the Church has not accepted the EO practice of allowing a second marriage in some circumstances. The difference is that the Church does not consider that valid consummated marriages are dissoluble, while the EO considers them to be in fact dissolble in those particular cases.

 

[kyrie03]

Why does it pain you that others think the Holy Father know more than they do? Shouldn’t humility demand that excepting instruction be the default over criticizing instruction?

If it helps remember that nothing in here requires you or anyone to receive communion if it causes you to violate your conscience. It this does not apply to you (or another), then there should be no cause to even consider the question.

According to Blue Horizon, I am just an empty drum (post#298). The reason this empty drum is hurting has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with the revolution in the Church today coming from the highest places of authority.

Scripture and the Church have always been clear on mortal sin and reception of Communion. The truth of God’s law cannot change. Yet the Magisterium is now teaching us something new and different. Being in the state of Grace and the salvation of souls is no longer an absolute good; social, psychological, and sentimental reasons are justifications for persisting in an immoral way of living.

Supposedly, doctrine isn’t changing, just the practice. This double-talk and ambiguity lead, not only to confusion, but to more offenses committed against God.
Whatever happened to, “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil” (Matt 5:37)?

Catholics now question whether or not one can even commit a mortal sin. It seems that their understanding of mercy they wish to force on the Church would have us believe and act as if we could never do anything to offend God to the degree we could lose eternal happiness. Why bother? It’s more loving and merciful to change our thinking instead of our actions. As dcana rightly pointed out (#291), God promised his grace is sufficient for us to live without falling into serious sin. (2 Corinthians 12:9)

The “critics” of the Pope (how awful to be forced into this position) are attempting to point out rupture from previous Church doctrine. They are lambasted as ignorant, proud, self-righteous, fundamentalist, judgmental, Pharisaic, wannabe-theologians, etc…

This empty drum simply wants to love God living in the fullness of his Truth, and help others to do likewise.

 

[kyrie03]

Yes, you are right.

The document is not entirely ‘Eastern’ in approach, I was merely referring to that one instance.

I should also note that in the West we have a deeper understanding of how the Church’s tradition ‘develops’ without actually changing in substance. This is lacking in the Christian East, which (and I say this respectfully) can sometimes appear ‘fossilized’.

The document therefore marries an Eastern approach to sin with a Western appreciation of legitimate development of pastoral application of doctrine, within orthodox boundaries, to meet the needs of the time.

I can understand why this may appear to be ‘controversial’ to ‘traditionalist’ Latin-rite purists and some Easterners as well, therefore, since Amoris Laetitia would seem to ‘marry’ two approaches from East/West that have not usually been joined together - perhaps never been joined together. The ‘fruit’ of this conjoining is rather fascinating to me.

But why stop at patterning the Church after the Orthodox schismatics? Let’s embrace the Protestant way of thinking - whatever my conscience tells me is what is important between me and God.

A similarly fascinating fruit was offered to our first parents. We are all reaping the rewards of the consumption of that fruit.

 

[Tomdstone]

According to Blue Horizon, I am just an empty drum (post#298). The reason this empty drum is hurting has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with the revolution in the Church today coming from the highest places of authority.

Scripture and the Church have always been clear on mortal sin and reception of Communion. The truth of God’s law cannot change. Yet the Magisterium is now teaching us something new and different. Being in the state of Grace and the salvation of souls is no longer an absolute good; social, psychological, and sentimental reasons are justifications for persisting in an immoral way of living.

Supposedly, doctrine isn’t changing, just the practice. This double-talk and ambiguity lead, not only to confusion, but to more offenses committed against God.
Whatever happened to, “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil” (Matt 5:37)?

Catholics now question whether or not one can even commit a mortal sin. It seems that their understanding of mercy they wish to force on the Church would have us believe and act as if we could never do anything to offend God to the degree we could lose eternal happiness. Why bother? It’s more loving and merciful to change our thinking instead of our actions. As dcana rightly pointed out (#291), God promised his grace is sufficient for us to live without falling into serious sin. (2 Corinthians 12:9)

The “critics” of the Pope (how awful to be forced into this position) are attempting to point out rupture from previous Church doctrine. They are lambasted as ignorant, proud, self-righteous, fundamentalist, judgmental, Pharisaic, wannabe-theologians, etc…

This empty drum simply wants to love God living in the fullness of his Truth, and help others to do likewise.

Blue Horizon uses fallacious ad hominem arguments. Was Jesus an empty drum when he said: "41 “Then he will also speak to those on his left, saying, ‘Get away from me, you who are cursed! Go off into the fire prepared for the Adversary and his angels! 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 a stranger and you did not welcome me, needing clothes and you did not give them to me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, needing clothes, sick or in prison, and not take care of you?’ 45 And he will answer them, ‘Yes! I tell you that whenever you refused to do it for the least important of these people, you refused to do it for me!’ 46 They will go off to eternal punishment, but those who have done what God wants will go to eternal life.”
I don’t see any mention here of third level theology required before it can be said that the person will go off into eternal punishment.

 

[Emperor_Markus]

What can I say? Having heard the news coverage about this document from legitimate Catholic sources, I’m disappointed. I just can’t see how someone normally denied communion would be “not excommunicated”. Is there a separate punishment besides excommunication that excludes you from receiving the Eucharist?

I hope my question is coherent enough. This is a confusing time.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Pope Francis’s point is not what you think it is.

He merely observes that if it is pastorally prudentially accepted that an irregular couple in certain circumstances should not separate (sake of kids) - which still seems to be against Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage even if they are continent - then there could also be prudential reasons why they should also be advised not to stop having a sexual relationship (it may affect stability) - which also seems to be against Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Perfectly logical and pastorally acceptable advice.
Couples in stable “legitimate” irregular marriages (ie tolerated to stay together for the kid’s sake) “burn” just as much as those in clean Catholic marriages do they not?

Yes, Pope Francis is going beyond Pope Benedict’s prudential allowance (you can stay together for the kids sake). As Pope he is allowed to isn’t he? Its a prudential judgement.

Irregular Marriage is an oxymoron BTW. On another note. One would seriously question if it is the will of Christ for a couple to have intimate relations with one person while being married to another. If so it would be news to me.

Also what happens when those kids grow up leave home.

The Prodigal Son did not return to the father with his prostitutes. He left that life.

The Woman in Adultery was told to sin no more and since the theme of the woman’s plight was adultery that was the sin she was to do no more. . Christ meant what he said and said what he meant. We are all just called to LOVE LOVE LOVE. Imagine if you went to the Doctor and he/she found out you were ill but failed to inform you or treat you because it would be upsetting for you to find out you were ill.

 

[OraLabora]

No one remains in solitude. Living a life of continence is not the same as being in solitude. Nor is living such a life a ‘punishment’. I am surprised that you would even call it such.

Let’s be realistic here. Few will undertake a relationship of total continence in this era. One may have many friends, even roommates. It is not the same as sharing a life. For some that may work, for others, not. We are not all cookie-cutter humans.

As far as being left in single parenthood, God does that all the time when He calls one spouse, but leaves another on Earth.

Yes, that happened to my own mother. And we moved in with her spinster sister after my father died, when I was 12 because my mother was too poor to live alone.

However, widows and widowers are free to remarry. The wife abandoned by a philandering spouse, or moving out because of a violent husband, do not have that freedom.

That said, there are also cases where the irregular marriage is within the context of a conversion process (someone wishing to join the Church, or returning Catholics, or as was pointed out, someone finding out they were baptized as an infant but didn’t know about it because their parents didn’t follow up on it).

In any case it would seem the Holy Father agrees that harshness is not the response in certain cases.

We seem to be saying to those: no sacramental grace for you. You need to be nearly perfect before you can have access to it. And off they go to a Protestant church…

 

[TMC]

I stepped away from this thread for a day or so, and I have to say I am shocked at some of the comments made here. Conclusively saying that he remarried have “dead souls”? Comparing offering the sacraments to those in irregular marriage to giving bread to a corpse? Sickening and offensive.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I stepped away from this thread for a day or so, and I have to say I am shocked at some of the comments made here. Conclusively saying that he remarried have “dead souls”? Comparing offering the sacraments to those in irregular marriage to giving bread to a corpse? Sickening and offensive.

Sure that is taking it too far. But some of us are sickened and offended by adultery and possible desecration of God.

What I don’t understand is that I live in a world and time where my family and marriage is under constant attack. The church is supposed to help this. Where is the help for those who wish to be holy? To follow God?

Where is the mercy in these concessions? Where is the salvation of souls?

This seems like triage when the family unit is on life support. Marriage is as confused and redefined as ever. Now, not only are we being told from the world that marriage is not specifically male and female but now by the church we are being told it need not be between just two people and it may not be permanent…

 

[TMC]

Sure that is taking it too far. But some of us are sickened and offended by adultery and possible desecration of God.

What I don’t understand is that I live in a world and time where my family and marriage is under constant attack. The church is supposed to help this. Where is the help for those who wish to be holy? To follow God?

Where is the mercy in these concessions? Where is the salvation of souls?

This seems like triage when the family unit is on life support. Marriage is as confused and redefined as ever. Now, not only are we being told from the world that marriage is not specifically male and female but now by the church we are being told it need not be between just two people and it may not be permanent…

Well, I am glad you agree that is taking it too far.

That said, I am in a completely regular sacramental Catholic marriage. My wife and I don’t feel our marriage is under attack in any way. None of the divorced Catholics we know have tried to get us to divorce. Admitting sincere remarried Catholics to the sacraments doesn’t do anything to my marriage, and it doesn’t fail to help me in any way. It is an aid to them, not a rebuke to me. I view it as between them, their pastor and God. Seems to me that is what the Pope is saying. I don’t see how that attacks my marriage or works any desecration.

 

[OraLabora]

I stepped away from this thread for a day or so, and I have to say I am shocked at some of the comments made here. Conclusively saying that he remarried have “dead souls”? Comparing offering the sacraments to those in irregular marriage to giving bread to a corpse? Sickening and offensive.

:thumbs:

Well, I am glad you agree that is taking it too far.

That said, I am in a completely regular sacramental Catholic marriage. My wife and I don’t feel our marriage is under attack in any way. None of the divorced Catholics we know have tried to get us to divorce. Admitting sincere remarried Catholics to the sacraments doesn’t do anything to my marriage, and it doesn’t fail to help me in any way. It is an aid to them, not a rebuke to me. I view it as between them, their pastor and God. Seems to me that is what the Pope is saying. I don’t see how that attacks my marriage or works any desecration.

In my case I was in an irregular situation for some years as I was married civilly as I mentioned elsewhere. Eventually our marriage was convalidated but it was a long journey mainly of convincing my wife that the Catholic Church was not an ogre trying to swallow her whole.

A kind priest told me to receive the sacraments as long as I kept trying to get the situation straightened up. It did take some years. Eventually it happened. I only learned years later that according to some I shouldn’t have been receiving communion. So I confessed that to my spiritual director, a good and holy Benedictine monk, orthodox to the hilt. His reply: “Ora, I shouldn’t be saying this ‘officially’ but you needed the grace of the sacraments to bring you and your wife to this point”.

So now I’m in a regular, sacramental marriage to a baptized Anglican; somewhat oddly the reverse of my own parents as my mother was Catholic and my father Anglican.

The world is a messy place and thank God for Pope Francis who is trying to help people get themselves sorted out and recognizing the importance of sacramental grace in the conversion process.

You’d think from this thread that conversion was simply a switch that you flipped and not a life-long process. Benedictines become monks and nuns not because they have converted to the faith, but because they want to convert. They recognize that it takes a lifetime to make a saint.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, I am glad you agree that is taking it too far.

That said, I am in a completely regular sacramental Catholic marriage. My wife and I don’t feel our marriage is under attack in any way. None of the divorced Catholics we know have tried to get us to divorce. Admitting sincere remarried Catholics to the sacraments doesn’t do anything to my marriage, and it doesn’t fail to help me in any way. It is an aid to them, not a rebuke to me. I view it as between them, their pastor and God. Seems to me that is what the Pope is saying. I don’t see how that attacks my marriage or works any desecration.

Sin affects all. And ambiguity or a wink and a nod when dealing with marriage is one of the reasons our world is defeating our church in the area of one of its own sacraments. The body of Christ cannot have a disease and it not affect you. The wages of sin is death. If you think that just because that sin is not committed by you that your marriage and family are not affected and infected then maybe you can’t see the Forrest for the trees.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think the Holy Father is nuancing the levels of culpability.

I think that it’s disingenuous say that a spouse abandoned many years ago by their spouse, with no chance of that spouse every coming back has “abandoned” him or her.

“having been abandoned” doesn’t change the situation, does it?

He says very clearly that each individual case is different, should be viewed on its own merits or demerits, and that it’s not a given that two spouses in a divorce are equally culpable.

Culpable for the disintegration of the marriage? Ture. Culpable for adultery in a second marriage? That’s a separate,distinct act. Being less culpable in the breakup doesn’t absolve the remarriage.

A man who runs off with a colleague bears a much greater responsibility than the spouse he abandoned, for example. I can’t believe that God wants to punish the spouse left behind with a lifetime of solitude and possibly single parenthood.

Once again, being innocent in the breakup doesn’t excuse the follow on adultery.

We are talking about real lives, not theological hypotheses.

Yes, we are. Sometimes life just sucks. We are dealt hands we don’t like.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, we are. Sometimes life just sucks. We are dealt hands we don’t like.

Right. And the Holy Father would like it to be a bit less harsh for these folks, and recognizes the potential role of sacramental grace in the process.

 

[kyrie03]

The Magisterium at the Council of Trent (not just a pastoral exhortation) has spoken unambiguously about the doctrine of eternal salvation. All quotes are taken from Trent’s Decree Concerning Justification. There are so many that apply that I had to be selective. Please read the whole document. ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[42]
Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are commanded, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe[43] given them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and may have life eternal….

But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.

For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.[58]
His commandments are not heavy,[59] and his yoke is sweet and burden light.[60]
For on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance…

**

Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent,[91] it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners,[92] and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ.

**