Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[OraLabora]

Based on personal experience I may be sensitive to the idea that the abandoned party may not get their say. It wasn’t a very good time for my mother. She was devastated and for a very long time insisted on having her say in the validity of the marriage before the tribunal. There is no way to include the abandoned party in the internal form. There are lots of abandoned partys out there. 30% of marriages end due to infidelity. Its not fun and very damaging to the party abandoned.

As someone who was adopted as an infant in 1958, I have the same blind spot on discussions about abortion, but fortunately I find a receptive audience for my view in the Church. Outside the Church, not so much.

On the question of internal forum, this is what the Holy Father had to say:

Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. 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”. These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions”, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours. When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own desires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard

It doesn’t sound to me like a flippant process, nor does it appear to guarantee access to the sacraments. It is however, not clear to me if the “internal forum” is sufficient to declare nullity and convalidate the second marriage. I pretty sure not but someone more informed can perhaps help here. I think it would still require a decree of nullity through a proper process. I think the “internal forum” recognizes that such a process is not possible for whatever reasons, and allows cautious reception of the sacraments (or at least in this document; it wasn’t possible in previous ones). It doesn’t make the second marriage valid but may mitigate culpability for it, which is what the Holy Father seems to be saying.

 

[Little_Sheep]

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.

I, too, have stepped away from this board. I have been drawn back to read and not discuss.

The comments you reference broke my heart, for good.

I have such enormous love for the Catholic faith and the Catholics I know apart from some corners of the Interwebz. But some of the things I read here make me want to vomit. Perhaps it is just the cover of anonymity that allows devout people to spew their ID. I also respect that you are chattering among family. Always, I strive towards charity, so I will humbly toss it off to that.

But still, please.

 

[JimG]

As someone who was adopted as an infant in 1958, I have the same blind spot on discussions about abortion, but fortunately I find a receptive audience for my view in the Church. Outside the Church, not so much.

On the question of internal forum, this is what the Holy Father had to say:

It doesn’t sound to me like a flippant process, nor does it appear to guarantee access to the sacraments. It is however, not clear to me if the “internal forum” is sufficient to declare nullity and convalidate the second marriage. I pretty sure not but someone more informed can perhaps help here. I think it would still require a decree of nullity through a proper process. I think the “internal forum” recognizes that such a process is not possible for whatever reasons, and allows cautious reception of the sacraments (or at least in this document; it wasn’t possible in previous ones). It doesn’t make the second marriage valid but may mitigate culpability for it, which is what the Holy Father seems to be saying.

This is what puzzles me. If the internal forum canot make the second marriage valid, (and I agree that it cannot), then how can it presume to advise someone to ignore the existence of a valid first marriage and receive comunion anyway? It seems contradictory.

 

[Pug]

I’m not joking. You are thinking of the Congo. The pope referenced the Congo rape scenario during the discussion. Zika is a virus transmitted by mosquitos and can possibly cause birth defects. You can read what the pope said exactly or you can search the forums for the threads dealing with this.

Thanks for clarifying. I had read the pope’s remarks and had needed to field questions about the Congo nuns from a catechumen, but I hadn’t seen all the fallout in the press, nor the interview in Italian with Lombardi, so I had no idea he had been understood to be talking so freely (from my perspective) about using contraception. It is comforting to know that I don’t speak Italian, so none of this applies to me.

 

[OraLabora]

This is what puzzles me. If the internal forum canot make the second marriage valid, (and I agree that it cannot), then how can it presume to advise someone to ignore the existence of a valid first marriage and receive comunion anyway? It seems contradictory.

By my understanding, by mitigating the culpability for the second union. It’s saying, essentially, “we know in our hearts that the first marriage was not valid, but we cannot canonically prove it”.

The role of the priest then becomes to discern the sincerity of that statement, understand the grounds for their self-assessment, and see what the next step is (which could be refusal!). Note that Benedict XVI did say that the “internal forum” could not be used to justify reception of the sacraments. Francis seems to be saying perhaps it can, in very limited circumstances; the paragraph I quoted would appear to indicate that if it is possible, it is far, far from being a wide open door. It is rather saying that “no matter how many rules we make a case may come up that confounds us and confounds mercy, so we cannot make a blanket rule but uphold the possibility that there may be a reason in some cases”.

It really is just acknowledging that black-and-white rules are difficult to apply in an increasingly grey world while maintaining both mercy and justice.

I think that we also have to recognize that if by overzealous application of the letter of the law we cause the loss of a soul to despair, then it is as much on our conscience as it is on the lost soul’s conscience. It doesn’t mean we ignore the law but instead realize that bringing someone into 100% compliance may never be possible; we may have to settle for 50, or 80 or even 99%. And even if 100% compliance is eventually possible in some cases, it’s a long uphill road to get there, which is why the Holy Father also speaks of the concept of gradualism.

 

[JimG]

By my understanding, by mitigating the culpability for the second union. It’s saying, essentially, “we know in our hearts that the first marriage was not valid, but we cannot canonically prove it”.

The role of the priest then becomes to discern the sincerity of that statement, understand the grounds for their self-assessment, and see what the next step is (which could be refusal!). Note that Benedict XVI did say that the “internal forum” could not be used to justify reception of the sacraments. Francis seems to be saying perhaps it can, in very limited circumstances; the paragraph I quoted would appear to indicate that if it is possible, it is far, far from being a wide open door. It is rather saying that “no matter how many rules we make a case may come up that confounds us and confounds mercy, so we cannot make a blanket rule but uphold the possibility that there may be a reason in some cases”.

It really is just acknowledging that black-and-white rules are difficult to apply in an increasingly grey world while maintaining both mercy and justice.

I think that we also have to recognize that if by overzealous application of the letter of the law we cause the loss of a soul to despair, then it is as much on our conscience as it is on the lost soul’s conscience. It doesn’t mean we ignore the law but instead realize that bringing someone into 100% compliance may never be possible; we may have to settle for 50, or 80 or even 99%. And even if 100% compliance is eventually possible in some cases, it’s a long uphill road to get there, which is why the Holy Father also speaks of the concept of gradualism.

Okay, you are saying that the internal forum really does come to a reasoned conclusion that the first marriage was not valid. I can see how that might be possible. It just seems that there should be some way for it to be formalized. (For example, what if the other party to the first marriage has come to the opposite conclusion in an internal forum?)

 

[Pug]

Thanks. I found the passages you quoted above on the Vatican catechism online.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

It makes sense that a Catholic does not bear responsibility for a mortally sinful act if they are completely unaware that the act is sinful, or that there’s another reason why they aren’t culpable. What the catechism doesn’t address, at least directly, is whether or not it can be assumed that a baptized Catholic is in a state of grace after committing sin without the required knowledge or consent. That’s what I was trying to get at initially.

Assuming a Catholic starts in a state of grace, and then goes on to commit one sin, but that sin is not mortal because it lacks at least one thing from either gravity, sufficient consent, or sufficient knowledge, then the Catholic will continue in a state of grace, because lesser sins (venial sins) do not destroy charity/life within us. They do not cause a break with God. They set up bad patterns, and may dispose us to get into more trouble over time, though. Those lesser sins can hurt, so they do matter.

**1855 **Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

Which brings up an interesting issue. The divorce issue is a bit complicated, but how about another common sin nowadays, which is that of co-habitation, and the accompanying fornication that almost always goes with it. Is it really likely that a baptized Catholic, who has attended Mass since childhood, is completely unaware that living with one’s boyfriend or girlfriend is mortally sinful? Surely the average Catholic would have heard it from somewhere during their life that this is a mortal sin. Therefore, they are responsible for having committed the mortal sin, I assume.

Let me make a sad, but true remark. I knew “fornication” was a big sin since I was fairly young. But I thought it was some kind of partying or revelry, which didn’t appeal to me, so I never investigated further. But I was Methodist at the time, so blame them. I also knew adultery was wrong, but I did have that definition correct, which meant it didn’t have anything to do with me at the time. So you can see how some confusion can arise if your family doesn’t talk to you about anything. I was left in the capable hands of the public school system. Oh, that and some ever so helpful book my mother provided to me by Judy Blume (Forever).

So I tend to allow that someone might have been taught a few things, but they might not have put it together quite enough to work it all through. But then again, them might have.

 

[deaconjohnO]

“we know in our hearts that the first marriage was not valid, but we cannot canonically prove it”.

].

Doesn’t this leave the other party from the first marriage out of the equation? In the annulment process the first party has the right to be heard. Defense of the Bond is canonically required for an validity of the process or am I wrong? It would seem to me that of all the grave matters regarding sin and allowing return to the sacrament via internal form, irregular marriages and/or situations would seem to the most difficult to resolve due to the fact that there is more than one party involved. “WE” know in our hearts. Who is this “we”? It can only mean the spouses of the first Marriage. Are they to be included in this internal form process? In the internal process there really can never be a “we know in our heart” unless both spouses from the first marriage are present to say this. How could a priest ever in a million years determine the validity of a first marriage if it is not possible to weigh all the evidence. Its not a matter of “following rules” its a matter of hearing all the voices regarding the situation.

 

[Denise1957]

Let me make a sad, but true remark. I knew “fornication” was a big sin since I was fairly young. But I thought it was some kind of partying or revelry, which didn’t appeal to me, so I never investigated further. But I was Methodist at the time, so blame them. I also knew adultery was wrong, but I did have that definition correct, which meant it didn’t have anything to do with me at the time. So you can see how some confusion can arise if your family doesn’t talk to you about anything. I was left in the capable hands of the public school system. Oh, that and some ever so helpful book my mother provided to me by Judy Blume (Forever).

So I tend to allow that someone might have been taught a few things, but they might not have put it together quite enough to work it all through. But then again, them might have.

I can understand how a Methodist might not understand Catholic teaching on fornication. But someone who was born and raised Catholic would likely have been informed of Church teaching at some point along the way, such as Confirmation. Or a grandparent. Maybe even a homily at Mass. For a Catholic to be co-habitating is generally sinful, because they likely would know that it goes against Church teaching, but choose to do it anyway. This is one of the most common sins today. It can’t be used as an excuse that…“everyone else is living together.”

We Catholics are expected to rise above the worldly pursuits, and seek a higher cause, at least in things that we can knowingly make a choice in.

 

[OraLabora]

I can understand how a Methodist might not understand Catholic teaching on fornication. But someone who was born and raised Catholic would likely have been informed of Church teaching at some point along the way, such as Confirmation. Or a grandparent. Maybe even a homily at Mass. For a Catholic to be co-habitating is generally sinful, because they likely would know that it goes against Church teaching, but choose to do it anyway. This is one of the most common sins today. It can’t be used as an excuse that…“everyone else is living together.”

We Catholics are expected to rise above the worldly pursuits, and seek a higher cause, at least in things that we can knowingly make a choice in.

Yes but… as I mentioned earlier a Catholic may have left the Church and now wants to come back. In the meantime the Catholic may have started a family from an illicit union.

How do we chart a path back for them? And how do we deal with the various complications: non-Catholic de facto spouses, and other issues?

The idea always is, I think, to save a soul, not chase it away.

 

[OraLabora]

In the annulment process the first party has the right to be heard. Defense of the Bond is canonically required for an validity of the process or am I wrong?

I am only guessing here but one of the reasons for this “internal forum” process may be a non-cooperative ex-spouse, or one who cannot be located.

Again we have to keep in mind the nuances in Francis’s document. He did not say one size fits all. He did not say that the Internal Forum is applicable in all cases, or even in very many cases. He did say that discernment with a priest is necessary. He did cite numerous conditions to establish the sincerity of the couple attempting this route.

Can we at least give the benefit of the doubt to our clergy, of which you are a member, to do their best to get this right?

Will some make a mess of it? No doubt, the clergy are human after all. But it’s usually bad form to punish the righteous for the misdeeds, willful or not, of a few.

I think it would be helpful to this discussion if we stopped taking the worst-case scenario and assume it applies across the board…

 

[deaconjohnO]

Okay, you are saying that the internal forum really does come to a reasoned conclusion that the first marriage was not valid. I can see how that might be possible. It just seems that there should be some way for it to be formalized. (For example, what if the other party to the first marriage has come to the opposite conclusion in an internal forum?)

Canon law would have to be changed for this to occur. Determining the validity of a marriage is handled through the process of annulment which has structure and respect for the original parties involved. Justice demands that the parties involved in the first marriage situation have a right to be heard. The internal forum does not allow for this justice.

 

[Denise1957]

Well said! May God Bless you for your courageous words!

I very much agree. dcana’s post is excellent. It’s always good to be reminded of Sacred Scripture. St. Paul seems a bit harsh, but he’s no doubt thinking of the eternal good of souls. After all, our life here is very short when compared to eternity.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I am only guessing here but one of the reasons for this “internal forum” process may be a non-cooperative ex-spouse, or one who cannot be located.

:

I think if we evaluated the myriad of possibilities that exist we would agree that use of the internal forum would be rare to nearly to the point of non-existence. And I for one would be very surprised to learn that Francis has allowed priests to individually declare Marriages invalid. Especially if a Tribunal completed a petition and declared a marriage valid.

I cannot fathom how a priest using an internal forum could overturn the a tribunal ruling. I can fathom a priest gently leading souls to accept Christ’s will in their lives. Especially when a tribunal has recourse to twice as much information regarding the petition and potential defense of the other spouse. Yes I agree realistically there are many many unique circumstances. I much enjoy this discussion. I assure you may intentions would never be to ruin the return of a soul to home. However that doesn’t put aside the very difficult questions that need to be asked. 90% of the time when I type a response here I learn greatly from the responses to my posts. I find it very deeply thought provoking and I appreciate the ability to learn. Bouncing ideas back and forth is just awe inspiring and I appreciate everyones comments.
With this in mind how do you feel about this pattern of beginning the process for a couple.

Is not the annulment process the normative path to initiate seeking in a situation?
Wouldn’t agreeing to proceed with the annulment process evidence enough that a couple is in understanding of the Church’s teaching?
Wouldn’t the completed annulment process be much more extensive in determining the validity of a marriage than the internal form which excludes hearing all the voices in the original marriage?
These are all questions that are simply for discussion and for learning. Discussion is good.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Based on personal experience I may be sensitive to the idea that the abandoned party may not get their say. It wasn’t a very good time for my mother. She was devastated and for a very long time insisted on having her say in the validity of the marriage before the tribunal. There is no way to include the abandoned party in the internal form. There are lots of abandoned partys out there. 30% of marriages end due to infidelity. Its not fun and very damaging to the party abandoned.

Deacon:

Frankly there is something wrong here. I do not know if you are a transitional deacon or a permanent deacon. As I bolded in the post above, you have repeatedly used in posts the term “form” when you should have written “forum”…whether you are transitional or permanent, you should know the usage of the most fundamental terms: form (as opposed to matter regarding a sacrament) and forum (whether internal or external). These are the most rudimentary of definitions.

Beyond that, if you are a transitional deacon, the things you have written here for the world to consume are discussions that you need to be having with your rector and with the formation team of your seminary, who are evaluating you for priesthood. If you’re a permanent deacon, you need to discuss this with your bishop, to whom you have made a promise of obedience, for him to be aware of and to assess of your ministerial assignment. That is where your discussion of your concerns properly rests…not in an Internet forum with readers who are neither clergy nor theologians.

Our Holy Father has made it very clear at the document’s beginning that implementation of the results from the synods will rest ultimately with the bishops, with the episcopal conferences, and with theologians. That is where these matters properly lie.

If your lived experiences of your parents marriage prevent you from dispassionately receiving the orientations that we clergy will all receive and then implementing them in favour of those to whom we minister without regard to our personal thoughts or prejudices, then you need to ask His Excellency, your bishop, to remand you to a special ministry that removes you from any issues that may touch upon how Amoris Laetitia is implemented in your diocese.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Based on personal experience I may be sensitive to the idea that the abandoned party may not get their say. It wasn’t a very good time for my mother. She was devastated and for a very long time insisted on having her say in the validity of the marriage before the tribunal. There is no way to include the abandoned party in the internal form. There are lots of abandoned partys out there. 30% of marriages end due to infidelity. Its not fun and very damaging to the party abandoned.

Deacon:

Frankly there is something wrong here. I do not know if you are a transitional deacon or a permanent deacon. As I bolded in the post above, you have repeatedly used in posts the term “form” when you should have written “forum”…whether you are transitional or permanent, you should know the usage of the most fundamental terms: form (as opposed to matter regarding a sacrament) and forum (whether internal or external). These are the most rudimentary of definitions.

Beyond that, if you are a transitional deacon, the things you have written here for the world to consume are discussions that you need to be having with your rector and with the formation team of your seminary, who are evaluating you for priesthood. If you’re a permanent deacon, you need to discuss this with your bishop, to whom you have made a promise of obedience, for him to be aware of and to assess in light of your ministerial assignment. That is where your discussion of your concerns properly rests…not in an Internet forum with readers who are neither clergy nor theologians.

Our Holy Father has made it very clear at the document’s beginning that implementation of the results from the synods will rest ultimately with the bishops, with the episcopal conferences, and with theologians. That is where these matters properly lie.

If your lived experience of your parents marriage prevents you from dispassionately receiving the orientations that we clergy will all receive and then implementing them in favour of those to whom we minister without regard to our personal thoughts or prejudices, then you need to ask your bishop to remand you to a ministry that removes you from any issues that may touch upon how Amoris Laetitia ultimately finds expression in your diocese.

 

[Pug]

Yes but… as I mentioned earlier a Catholic may have left the Church and now wants to come back. In the meantime the Catholic may have started a family from an illicit union.

How do we chart a path back for them?

There are many ways to arrive at that place. Their parents left the faith after baptizing them, or the child was confirmed at the age of reason and religious education stopped and the child drifted away, etc. And the spouse that they are now with could be in a different place religiously, even a non-cooperative one.

The Holy Spirit has a path for both members of the couple, of course. Assist them to find that path. Be true, be loving, be just. Don’t compromise any of them. I don’t envy the priest his task.

 

[irenaeus1]

The problem that Pope Francis is trying to elucidate is that it is not simple. Why? First, not all we think of as being in a second marriage are really in a second marriage.

Then seeking a declaration of nullity should discover this to be the case.

Even those that are, and are objectively committing adultery, may not know they are committing adultery and have not therefore committed a mortal sin.

After they have approached a priest or deacon for spiritual direction, they will soon figure out (if they really don’t know already) of their objectively sinful situation, thus making it mortally sinful now that they are aware and if they choose to remain and not ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

 

[irenaeus1]

It is interesting that Pope JP II stated that “[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”

Notice there is nothing about the situation being ‘mortally’ sinful, only that it is ‘objectively’ sinful, which is sufficient for not admitting to Holy Communion.

Then JP II concludes, “Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” But Pope Francis clearly admits in AL that he would rather there be confusion.

 

[deaconjohnO]

It is interesting that Pope JP II stated that “[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”

Notice there is nothing about the situation being ‘mortally’ sinful, only that it is ‘objectively’ sinful, which is sufficient for not admitting to Holy Communion.

Then JP II concludes, “Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” But Pope Francis clearly admits in AL that he would rather there be confusion.

This has been an interesting discussion. I am thankful for this synod process. Pope Francis has produced an absolutely breathtaking document. It has made me appreciative of his call for Mercy and I love him for that. His words are a reminder to all of us that the members of the body of Christ, particularly Her shepherds, should not become bogged down in searching for litanies of theological templates to attempt apply to the countless unique situations of individuals . He reminds us that each and everyone of us is a unique child of God who’s condition in life is like no other persons and we are to be tended to that way. It is a message of Love and a very compelling message. As pointed out by others this message of mercy will be implemented by our bishops who have the charisms to do so. Discussion among Catholics is good as long as we continue to seek Christ’s will in all of this. As for me I likely have stepped too far into this discussion and I apologize for that and thank God for the ability to share my faults through spiritual direction. Thank all of you for your insight. I will in the coming weeks and months and years be very excited to discuss the Joy Of Love with those whose theological discussion groups I belong. God Bless all. Peace