Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[kyrie03]

Continuing from the document of Trent on Justification….

Trusting therefore that by the mercy of our Lord and God and the prudent vigilance of the vicar of that God on earth, it will surely come about that for the government of the churches, a burden formidable even to the shoulders of angels, those who are most worthy, whose previous life in its every stage, from their youth to their riper years, laudably spent in the services of ecclesiastical discipline, bears testimony in their favor, will be chosen in accordance with the venerable ordinances of the holy Fathers,[135] it admonishes all who under whatever name or title are set over patriarchal, primatial, metropolitan and cathedral churches, and hereby wishes that they be considered admonished, that taking heed to themselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed them to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood,[136] that they be vigilant, as the Apostle commands, labor in all things and fulfill their ministry.[137]

Let them know, however, that they cannot fulfill this if like hirelings they desert the flocks committed to them[138] and do not attend to the guardianship of their sheep, whose blood will be required at their hands by the supreme judge;[139] since it is most certain that the shepherd’s excuse will not be accepted if the wolf devours the sheep and he knows it not.
And since there are some at this time, which is greatly to be deplored, who, forgetful even of their own salvation and preferring earthly things to the things of heaven and things human to things divine, wander about at divers courts or keep themselves occupied with the care of temporal affairs, their fold forsaken and their watchfulness over the sheep committed to them neglected, it has seemed good to the holy council to renew, as by virtue of the present decree it does renew, the old canons promulgated against non-residents,[140] which on account of the disorders of the times and of men have well-nigh fallen into desuetude….

 

[PaulinVA]

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.

I think the problem is ‘being pastoral’ is double speak for ‘loosening the rules’.

There is a clear path for people who were married, divorced, refused an annulment, and remarried, in whatever order. Live chastely as in the single state.

Stacy Sauls, an Episcopalian bishop, when talking at a General Convention in favor of gay marriage, said something like once you go against the clear teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage (which they allow), all of these other things (like gay marriage) are so much easier to allow.

That is my fear - that, under the guise of ‘pastoral care’ we go off the rails little by little.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think the problem is ‘being pastoral’ is double speak for ‘loosening the rules’.

There is a clear path for people who were married, divorced, refused an annulment, and remarried, in whatever order. Live chastely as in the single state.

Stacy Sauls, an Episcopalian bishop, when talking at a General Convention in favor of gay marriage, said something like once you go against the clear teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage (which they allow), all of these other things (like gay marriage) are so much easier to allow.

That is my fear - that, under the guise of ‘pastoral care’ we go off the rails little by little.

Absolutely!

 

[St_Francis]

The Pope said this should be read in light of Church teaching. Does he anywhere in the document say that D&R can be admitted to the sacraments? Or does he just say they should be guided along their individual paths?

The fact that someone is in an irregular marriage may or may not mean they are in a state of mortal sin. If nullity is later decreed of the first marriage, then, because the bride and groom are the ministers, the current marriage could be valid but illicit.

A person in this situation should be guided differently than someone who remarried after a marriage which seems to have no basis for a decree of nullity, don’t you think?

 

[Brendan_64]

When I first saw the Apostolic Exhortation I will admit that I was quite shocked, horrified really. I saw some of what was written in chapter 8 that I viewed as tantamount to a denial of the nature of sin. It disturbed me greatly and caused me all sorts of thoughts and serious doubts, doubts that would have effectively put me outside the Church.

But through taking counsel from a very good priest who I trust and stepping outside of my rational mental framework to reflect on the document and the intention of Pope Francis, I now take a different view on it. Do I like certain things in the document? No I don’t (but there is also much that I do like in the document as well). Do I agree with everything in the document? No I don’t (but there is much that I do agree).

However, I now view this document as a well-meaning attempt by Pope Francis to assert Church teaching on marriage, while at the same time trying to find a way for priests to be able to be able to deal with exceptional, messy, complicated situations that are not as clear-cut as we might think. Has the Pope got everything right in this document? I don’t think he has. However he has not rejected Church teaching nor has he tried to create ‘new’ teaching (he couldn’t anyway).

I think Cardinal Burke got it right when he explained that this document is not magisterial teaching, it reflects Pope Francis’s opinion (and he is entitled to have an opinion). Church teaching has not been changed by this document. The document is also an Apostolic exhortation which does not carry the same weight as an Encyclical and does not carry magisterial authority. It is simply Pope Francis’s attempt to reflect the opinion of the recent synods, re-state Catholic teaching on marriage and the family (which it does), and try to find a way forward for priests to deal with messy, unclear, exceptional circumstances.

We ought to cut the Holy Father some slack on this, he isn’t perfect and I think he has tried to do his best with this document. He hasn’t changed teaching, he certainly hasn’t said that divorced and remarried couples can now simply roll up and take Communion as their conscience dictates.

 

[Brendan]

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.

I understand that, but that does not make a life of continence some sort of Divine punishment, does it?

There are quite a number of things that God desires us to do that are contrary to the current culture.

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.

And why do they lack that freedom? Is it something that the Church can relive them of?

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…

No one is saying that there is no Sacramental Grace. They have their Baptism to fall upon, and a life of continence is not without Grace. That is not “nearly perfect”. I am sure that those who practice it would not classify themselves as having obtained “perfection”. What is means is that they are living their lives in accordance with the Will of God. And nothing that Pope Francis has stated changed that.

The teaching of the indissolubility of Marriage is not a harshness, but a Truth, and Pope Francis took great pains to reiterate that.

 

[kyrie03]

Pope Paul VI in Lumen Gentium ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2church.htm speaks of not conforming to the sins of the world, but instead, practice virtue in order to draw men to the fullness of truth.

Moreover, let the laity also by their combined efforts remedy the customs and conditions of the world, if they are an inducement to sin, so that they all may be conformed to the norms of justice and may favor the practice of virtue rather than hinder it. By so doing they will imbue culture and human activity with genuine moral values; they will better prepare the field of the world for the seed of the Word of God; and at the same time they will open wider the doors of the Church by which the message of peace may enter the world.

How does suggesting that -under grave circumstances (such as the good of the children), couples may persist in the state of irregular unions -help society recognize the truth of the Gospels?

 

[Brendan]

The fact that someone is in an irregular marriage may or may not mean they are in a state of mortal sin.,

What the Pope said is certainly true. A couple could be living as brother and sister. Such an arrangement would be an irregular marriage, but not a state of mortal sin.

 

[OraLabora]

He hasn’t changed teaching, he certainly hasn’t said that divorced and remarried couples can now simply roll up and take Communion as their conscience dictates.

Nor has anyone here suggested this I think. It is quite clear from the document that if the D &R can receive the sacraments (not just communion but technically the D & R are barred from all sacraments including confession), it is certain individual cases. He is quite clear that a one-size-fits-all approach is impossible on this subject, but he leaves the door open for receiving the sacraments in some individual cases with discernment from a priest that knows the couple.

It’s also important to note that this part of the exhortation is aimed at pastors, not at the laity. It’s equally important to note that Pope Francis has always made clear, in this document and in general, that he is against strict legalism. This is in fact consistent with his Latin background. I come from a similar background (French Canada) and we have never been strict legalist and see the God’s Law as an ideal that we all fall short of, and for which imperfection the only answer is God’s mercy. Interestingly the two popes prior to him were of Germanic and polish background. The last pope with a Latin background was Paul VI. In his time perhaps the divorce & remarriage issue hadn’t yet percolated to the top of the in-box. For the prior popes, St. John XXIII and Pius XII, divorce among Catholics was very rare and pretty much a taboo subject.

Pope Francis is addressing a situation of our time from within his cultural framework, which is not strictly legalistic.

In French we have an expression: “the exception confirms the rule”. Sometimes we have to make allowances for messy situations. Once again we cannot let the law do injury to justice. To do so is to reduce the law itself into an irrelevance that people will simply ignore.

 

[deaconjohnO]

Nor has anyone here suggested this I think. It is quite clear from the document that if the D &R can receive the sacraments (not just communion but technically the D & R are barred from all sacraments including confession), it is certain individual cases.

What about the sacrament of Matrimony? Can they receive that one too?

 

[kyrie03]

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor also addresses morality. ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2VER.HTM

The Church knows that the issue of morality is one which deeply touches every person; it involves all people, even those who do not know Christ and his Gospel or God himself. She knows that it is precisely on the path of the moral life that the way of salvation is open to all.

Christians are called to lead henceforth a life ‘worthy of the Gospel of Christ’ (Phil 1:27). Through the sacraments and prayer they receive the grace of Christ and the gifts of his Spirit which make them capable of such a life

John Paul II says that living a moral life based on the Gospels is for all men. He doesn’t give list of excuses that prevent people from living as such.

He addresses divorce….

In the same chapter of Matthew’s Gospel (19:3-10), Jesus, interpreting the Mosaic Law on marriage, rejects the right to divorce, appealing to a “beginning” more fundamental and more authoritative than the Law of Moses: God’s original plan for mankind, a plan which man after sin has no longer been able to live up to: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8).

He doesn’t propose a new understanding or practice of morality but insists it must be based on prior Church teaching……

The same Spirit who is at the origin of the Revelation of Jesus’ commandments and teachings guarantees that they will be reverently preserved, faithfully expounded and correctly applied in different times and places. This constant “putting into practice” of the commandments is the sign and fruit of a deeper insight into Revelation and of an understanding in the light of faith of new historical and cultural situations. Nevertheless, it can only confirm the permanent validity of revelation and follow in the line of the interpretation given to it by the great Tradition of the Church’s teaching and life, as witnessed by the teaching of the Fathers, the lives of the Saints, the Church’s Liturgy and the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[pnewton]

According to virtual Nobel Prize winner Benjamin Libet, no one ever has full consent of the will because unconscious neuronal processes, over which you have no or little control influence and possibly cause to some extent acts which you thought were freely chosen.

Not all take science so seriously when if crosses from science into philosophy or theology. But you hint at one important difference between me and others here, namely, I do not believe mortal sin is something that is casually or often committed. Of course I believe it exists, and I believe we individually should always err on the side of caution when examining ourselves, considering sin as seriously as we can. But this is a practical matter, just as I deem it practical to consider the reverse is true in others, so as to avoid judgment.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not all take science so seriously when if crosses from science into philosophy or theology.

That’s similar to what they told Galileo.

 

[Brendan_64]

Nor has anyone here suggested this I think. It is quite clear from the document that if the D &R can receive the sacraments (not just communion but technically the D & R are barred from all sacraments including confession), it is certain individual cases. He is quite clear that a one-size-fits-all approach is impossible on this subject, but he leaves the door open for receiving the sacraments in some individual cases with discernment from a priest that knows the couple.

I do not think that it is clear the document does change the situation regarding whether divorced and remarried can receive Communion. There will be messy cases that have not gone through the annulment process (and some perhaps can’t due to complicated circumstances) where things are not so clear cut. Father Longenecker makes some good points in this blog post patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/04/the-popes-exhortation-a-parish-priests-perspective.html .

This Apostolic exhortation does not represent a change in the Church teaching that divorced and remarried people cannot receive Communion. How can it? Church teaching cannot be changed, and anyway this is merely an Apostolic exhortation (which does not carry magisterial authority).

Cardnial Burke makes some very good points on this
m.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/#.Vwv4f_krIfe

What this isn’t is a green light for divorced and remarried couples to find a sympathetic parish priest who will give them the OK to go and receive Communion. This is an attempt to find a solution for situations where it is considerably dubious that the original marriage was ever valid, but where the annulment process has not been implemented for whatever reason. This is not a case of the Church ‘softening’ her view on divorced and remarried couples receiving Communion.

And I focus on Communion over the other sacraments, because to receive Communion while not in a state of grace is sacrilege.

 

[pnewton]

I think the problem is ‘being pastoral’ is double speak for ‘loosening the rules’.

No, no, no, not at all. It is not loosening the rules, but it is rather a proper ordering of “the rules”, in this case, canon law. Namely, that rules are tools for the exercise of mission of the Church. They are not the mission of the Church, which is salvation. They exist because they are practical, in general, not universally.The annulment process will still exist because it needs to exist to help the people of God. But even this is an instrument of mercy.

I can see where the concern is that every person in any sort of irregular marriage will jump up and claim they are exceptional. However, if we are going to criticize the Holy Father, let us also give him some credit for seeing this. There is also an abundance of warning about operating within proper doctrine and protecting the virtue of Holy Matrimony. There is far more in this exhortation about this latter point than anything else.

 

[kyrie03]

Sorry if I am boring the people on this thread. But Blue requested Magisterial documentation to back up what I was saying.

In Veritatis Splendor continued, Pope John Paul II addresses the internal forum and moral relativism……

Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values…The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

He blames the crisis of truth to be the result of novel understanding of conscience apart from the absolute good….

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature

.

He talks about new thinking and makes it clear that one must reject the novelty seeking instead to do what is morally good, to seek the truth….

Mention should also be made here of theories which misuse scientific research about the human person. Arguing from the great variety of customs, behaviour patterns and institutions present in humanity, these theories end up, if not with an outright denial of universal human values, at least with a relativistic conception of morality.……Genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man. For God willed to leave man ‘in the power of his own counsel’ (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God".[57] Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known.[58] As Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: “Conscience has rights because it has duties”.[59]

This gradual battering down of the absolute truth lead to novel ideas about the morality of actions….

Certain tendencies in contemporary moral theology, under the influence of the currents of subjectivism and individualism just mentioned, involve novel interpretations of the relationship of freedom to the moral law, human nature and conscience, and propose novel criteria for the moral evaluation of acts. Despite their variety, these tendencies are at one in lessening or even denying the dependence of freedom on truth.
If we wish to undertake a critical discernment of these tendencies—a discernment capable of acknowledging what is legitimate, useful and of value in them, while at the same time pointing out their ambiguities, dangers and errors–we must examine them in the light of the fundamental dependence of freedom upon truth, a dependence which has found its clearest and most authoritative expression in the words of Christ: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).

 

[pnewton]

That’s similar to what they told Galileo.

Galileo never tried to comment on the state of the soul. Astrophysics is not metaphysics. Let me just say I lack your faith in modern psychology.

 

[OraLabora]

What about the sacrament of Matrimony? Can they receive that one too?

What’s your point besides arguing? Can they receive the sacrament of holy orders? Not even the validly married can except for the permanent diaconate, and some exceptions like Anglican converts (speaking of the Roman Church).

The issue is not whether they can enter a second valid marriage. Obviously they can’t without a decree of nullity for the first. The issue is whether they are personally culpable of grave sin.

Please stop the nonsensical rhetorical games and discuss the issue seriously, and stop playing me for a fool.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you believe that the catechism states that a person is indeed in a state of grace if they are living in adultery or a homosexual relationship, provided that they are unaware that they are committing sin?

I also mentioned this could be the case if full free will is also lacking.

Its the same principles stated in the CCC for a habit of masturbation.

Did you notice Pope Francis quoted those same principles in AL.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry if I am boring the people on this thread. But Blue requested Magisterial documentation to back up what I was saying.

In Veritatis Splendor continued, Pope John Paul II addresses the internal forum and moral relativism

Here is that document

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

He does not address the internal forum. He does expound, as you point out, on the proper role of the conscience. I do not see where it applies here though. I have not read where anyone has elevated the conscience to the level of infallibility. Veritatis Splendor addresses a problem that can happen, and a caution for all, but it does not contradict the normative role of the conscience, which is what is being used here, and in Amortis Laetitia.