Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[pnewton]

The IF solution was proposed decades ago, but it is not permitted. Those who did this did so in disobedience to the Church.

So it is occurring. If Pope Francis allows something like this, I wonder why it would need to be encoded, or if it is even possible to encode, into canon law something which by its nature is supposed to act outside of canon law.

Yes, divorce is public, but it is also private. In any case, the goal of salvation is primary, public or private. Perhaps the public nature of divorce was a greater issue when we were not a mobile society, or in places where everyone know everyone else’s history.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

I’m sorry but you’re one short. There are three conditions for mortal sin. One, grave matter. We all agree on that one. Two, full knowledge. You come up slightly short on that one, because simply being told so does not mean “full knowledge”. It means understanding its as well, otherwise the knowledge is incomplete.

Where you miss the point completely is on full consent of the will. A long-term sexual relationship might not be easy to break for many folks. Let’s see what the Holy Father said in Amoris Laetitia:

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

Note that he is quoting straight from the CCC. This is Catholic doctrine. That simply being told that a grave matter is a mortal sin makes one mortally culpable, is not.

 

[St_Francis]

No. Neither of us were previously married. It was just an irregular situation due to having been married civilly when I was a lapsed Catholic. Instead my pastors used the approach of gradualism, which is in the exhortation (and which S. JP II also speaks of).

Well, since the people who are marrying are the actual ministers of the sacrament, then this was more a matter of paperwork than of sin.

I was simply pointing out that neither the IF nor radical sanation are the “ideal” approach to their respective problems, they are the routes of last resort.

Except that the IF is forbidden in cases of D&R, so not a route at all.

I really don’t have a dog in this hunt, but am more than upset at the complete lack of trust that far too many people on this forum have for the Holy Father.

I was really happy with what I read about the exhortation until someone pointed out that it opens the door for D&R to receive the sacraments… and wrt the document and the Pope, I am not really saying anything because so often when things are clarified it turns out to be something else altogether.

What I am talking about is the IFS whether it’s in AL or not.

Everything else that I know about that the Pope wrote about, I am happy with. Why? Because I feel that he is addressing a problem which exists in the Church in many different ways, not the least of which is the lack of support for family life which responds to the current situation in our day. If nothing else, for priests to explain stuff better so that D&R people can learn to accept their situation and even to grow within it, while not both committing objective sin and receiving the sacraments.

Laws are also important. They keep us from a situation of subjectively generated chaos.

Why is it a concern of ours? This part of the exhortation is a guideline for clergy. I trust that the Holy Father trusts his clergy.

Good. Last time bishops trusted their clergy, what happened? I’m sorry, Christ warned us to be simple as doves and wise as serpents. The clergy are not trustworthy because of their status, they are human beings subject to the same flaws the rest of us are.

If you read the document it becomes more than clear that he is not addressing every D&R couple, but is requesting discernment in particular cases in the light of mercy.

What does that mean? Why this case and not that case? How will all this be monitored? Why do some people get to be looked at in the light of mercy and others not?

No more, no less. Some people on the forum have said it shakes their faith. I would then respectfully suggest that the problem is not with the exhortation but with the strength of their faith.

Well, right now I have not been able to look at that part of the document. All too often people have told me the document says X—the sky is falling! And when I look at the document, I find that X is not what it says. I am just talking about the principle of the IFS.

 

[irenaeus1]

But that is not what a declaration of nullity is. It is not a declaration that one of the spouses is dead.

perhaps… but I can see Fr. Z’s point regarding the pastoral approach because the only way to legitimize the man and his ‘new’ wife (if the first marriage was indeed valid) is to presume the first wife is dead. But I suppose I get what you are saying if one of the spouses does not agree with the verdict of the tribunal, then the same could be said.

 

[irenaeus1]

It should.
Perhaps, but by then the conjugal life is part of who one is, especially if they know that their first marriage was not valid. Being together without relations might be too difficult for them. Separation might prove harmful to children involved.

Separation may prove harmful to children involved, but to be together without relations being too difficult cannot be a reason to sanction adultery. When Pope Francis cited Gaudium et Spes in a footnote, this was a quote clearly taken out of context. Gaudium et Spes 51 was speaking about married couples observing periodic abstinence. According to Canon lawyer, Ed Peters, Pope Francis seems to “compare that chaste sacrifice [of a married couple] with the angst public adulterers experience when they cease engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.”

Notice the amount of times we have to use word like “should” and “might”. The Holy Father was trying to get us away from looking at all marriages the same way and lead us to understand each marriage base on moral principles, not category.

Which is why everyone knew what Pope JP II taught in Familiaris Consortio, but everyone is guessing at what Pope Francis was attempting to teach. Jesus would have potentially saved us a lot of trouble if he would have simply said that remarriage following a divorce “might” be adultery. Also, Pope Francis doesn’t have trouble clearly teaching absolutes elsewhere such as abortion being morally wrong or that same-sex unions can never be considered marriages, but with divorce and remarriage, he is tentative; the Church can no longer even bring itself to call civilly approved adultery a sin; rather, it is merely referenced as “irregular”.

 

[irenaeus1]

I’m sorry but you’re one short. There are three conditions for mortal sin. One, grave matter. We all agree on that one. Two, full knowledge. You come up slightly short on that one, because simply being told so does not mean “full knowledge”. It means understanding its as well, otherwise the knowledge is incomplete.

Where you miss the point completely is on full consent of the will. A long-term sexual relationship might not be easy to break for many folks. Let’s see what the Holy Father said in Amoris Laetitia:

Note that he is quoting straight from the CCC. This is Catholic doctrine. That simply being told that a grave matter is a mortal sin makes one mortally culpable, is not.

Having sex with your ‘second’ spouse is voluntary and so requires full consent. But be that as it may, the requirement that the sin be mortal is not germane to the discussion regarding admission to Eucharistic Communion. 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. Another reason for not admitting to Holy Communion, according to JP II, was the scandal, error and confusion that this causes for the faithful regarding the indissolubility of marriage. How has this been addressed?

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

Is it still too early to sing “Te deum”?

 

[OraLabora]

Jesus would have potentially saved us a lot of trouble if he would have simply said that remarriage following a divorce “might” be adultery.

Jesus did however suggest that the blame for the adultery might not rest on the shoulders of the person being abandoned:

But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

(Mt 5, 32)

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.

(Mt 19, 9)

He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;

(Mk 10, 11)

In the first quote it says that the one doing the abandoning causes her to commit adultery. In the other two quotes, He says nothing about the abandoned spouse.

Perhaps a more nuanced reading of these teachings would be timely.

In the exhortation, Francis is very clear that the level of guilt for the divorce can clearly be a mitigating factor for the party that did not cause the divorce.

 

[OraLabora]

Having sex with your ‘second’ spouse is voluntary and so requires full consent.

Not so. In many relationships, and especially in many cultures, there is an unequal power relationship between husband and wife, and it is possible for sex to be coerced, even subtly. Moreover as in the CCC comments on masturbation there are other possible factors that mitigate full consent of the will: habit, affective maturity, to name a couple. Only in the most black-and-white reading of moral law can what you state above be true across the board.

But be that as it may, the requirement that the sin be mortal is not germane to the discussion regarding admission to Eucharistic Communion. 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.”

Right. And Pope Francis states that this discipline may be open to change in limited circumstances. Pope Francis is the pope. I for one am not going to second-guess him and in fact I will defend him. I’m a Benedictine and it is our tradition to be fully obedient to the Holy Father and to defend him. Not that I have anything to “obey” here because God forbid the situation doesn’t apply to me nor am I involved in pastoral care.

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.

What? This is absolutely NOT Catholic doctrine. If an objective grave matter is confessed and the confessor determines that culpability is not mortal, and suggests to the penitent that it is not necessary to confess this situation on a frequent basis but only a few times a year to assess if circumstances or understandings have changed, then the penitent is not guilty of mortal sin and may receive the Eucharist.

Another reason for not admitting to Holy Communion, according to JP II, was the scandal, error and confusion that this causes for the faithful regarding the indissolubility of marriage. How has this been addressed?

The notion of scandal in these cases is highly debatable in today’s context. When I was born, divorce was such a taboo subject for Catholics in my part of the world that the very few divorced and not remarried Catholics even stayed away from the sacraments.

Alas society has taken the turn of divorce-on-demand. And rightly many Catholics are not putting up with what they used to in order to avoid divorce, such as violence, and physical or mental abuse.

I really don’t understand black-and-white moralism

And I am especially angry at so many people here second-guessing the Pope, someone whom we should not only respect but learn from. I’ll bet dollars to donuts he has a lot more real front-line pastoral experience than most of us here do.

That said, I’m bailing from the discussion. It is becoming an occasion anger and of sin for me and I no longer have the energy to be angry nor desire to sin against fellow Catholics no matter how offensive I find them towards the Holy Father.

 

[pianistclare]

As often is the case, reaction is more disconcerting than Papal statements :

The Pope writes:“The debates carried on in the media, in certain publications and even among the Church’s ministers, range from an immoderate desire for total change without sufficient reflection or grounding, to an attitude that would solve everything by applying general rules or deriving undue conclusions from particular theological considerations”*.

He appears to be spot on because secularists seem to be gravitating to anything goes, and many of the faithful want everything in black and white.

Only somewhere in the middle is found mercy and compassion.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!

Yup. And as the passage says, we tend to be a stick-necked people.
I’m sad that people don’t support the Pope.
Folks are all for obedience, except when they aren’t.

 

[irenaeus1]

In the exhortation, Francis is very clear that the level of guilt for the divorce can clearly be a mitigating factor for the party that did not cause the divorce.

Pope JP II mentions the same, but still arrives at the conclusion that the divorced and remarried are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. If the marriage bond exists, it exists for both spouses even after separation.

 

[irenaeus1]

Perhaps a more nuanced reading of these teachings would be timely.

Why was this not discussed over the past 2 years in the heat of the discussion?

 

[otjm]

perhaps… but I can see Fr. Z’s point regarding the pastoral approach because the only way to legitimize the man and his ‘new’ wife (if the first marriage was indeed valid) is to presume the first wife is dead. But I suppose I get what you are saying if one of the spouses does not agree with the verdict of the tribunal, then the same could be said.

Don’t suppose. It not only could be said; in just about that many words it has been said, and said often by any number of spouses who simply cannot get their mind around the fact that a valid marriage takes a bit more than showing up sober and saying “I do” to the questions the priest or deacon asks.

And actually, it does nto require anyone to think the prior spouse is dead. They could also think that the prior marriage is invalid.

Elsewhere it has been noted by one poster that they were told by a priest that it depends on who is sitting on the tribunal; and that one tribunal member has (allegedly) refused to find nullity in what appears to be clear-cut evidence.

Assuming for the moment that is true - where does that put the person submitting their case to the court?

 

[otjm]

Separation may prove harmful to children involved, but to be together without relations being too difficult cannot be a reason to sanction adultery. When Pope Francis cited Gaudium et Spes in a footnote, this was a quote clearly taken out of context. Gaudium et Spes 51 was speaking about married couples observing periodic abstinence. According to Canon lawyer, Ed Peters, Pope Francis seems to “compare that chaste sacrifice [of a married couple] with the angst public adulterers experience when they cease engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.”

Which is why everyone knew what Pope JP II taught in Familiaris Consortio, but everyone is guessing at what Pope Francis was attempting to teach. Jesus would have potentially saved us a lot of trouble if he would have simply said that remarriage following a divorce “might” be adultery. Also, Pope Francis doesn’t have trouble clearly teaching absolutes elsewhere such as abortion being morally wrong or that same-sex unions can never be considered marriages, but with divorce and remarriage, he is tentative; the Church can no longer even bring itself to call civilly approved adultery a sin; rather, it is merely referenced as “irregular”.

1. the pope is not teaching - this is not aimed at pew sitters; it is aimed at bishops, and hose ordained who serve under him. The title itself says “exhortation”.

I woud suggest you get out your copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read what it has to say about conscience, and culpability for sin. You see in black and white; the CCC is a tad bit more nuanced. And the Pope is not saying that is outside the CCC.

 

[otjm]

I really don’t understand black-and-white moralism

There are several issues with black-and-white moralism. One can be a fear that somehow, left on their own, people will make bad choices; they want an authority to tell them exactly what to do/not do; they can then effectively turn over the responsibility for their choices to the authority. Which is another way of saying that some people are still in a very immature status of emotional growth; they have a very child-like position of expecting the authority to make their decisions simple and easy.

Another issue can be seen in the elder brother. His response to the father is that he “did exactly what the father expected of him”, and he never received any reward for following the law exactly. In that, he had company with the Pharisees, whom Christ constantly berated for seeing only the letter of the law, and never its intent nor its fullness.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think one can say the same about both. Properly having one’s previous situation examined by a tribunal for nullity, which among other things allows the other spouse to present the other side of the story, is far different than someone’s explaining to a possibly untrained priest his or her own view of the situation with no evidence and no (name removed by moderator)ut from the other spouse.

It would appear that you have not dealt with many people who have had a decree of nullity. I will not say I have dealt with a lot; but I have had more than one person whose marriage was called null go into a nuclear meltdown. They flat out could not understand, even when carefully and calmly explained, that they were wrong and the tribunal right. They had a very narrow and absolutist view of marriage. Try listening to someone in meltdown repeatedly say to you that they were there; the other person was there; they both answered the questions of the priest; and there was a church full of people witnessing it. And their spouse and they) were not drunk.

It is particularly hard to hear when someone was married for 10, 15 or more years with children, to be told that they had “been living a lie”.

In such situations, there is so much emotion that logic has no foothold.

Yes - they responded to the tribunal (in none of the cases were they the petitioner) and they fought it tooth and nail.

And well after the decision was rendered, they are still fighting it.

So you may think that it cannot be said about cases decided by a tribunal; but that is for lack of ever coming across the evidence in real life - and for that I do not blame you; I would only say you are blessed for not ever having to be the witness of such emotional trauma.

 

[Tomdstone]

It would appear that you have not dealt with many people who have had a decree of nullity. I will not say I have dealt with a lot; but I have had more than one person whose marriage was called null go into a nuclear meltdown. They flat out could not understand, even when carefully and calmly explained, that they were wrong and the tribunal right. They had a very narrow and absolutist view of marriage. Try listening to someone in meltdown repeatedly say to you that they were there; the other person was there; they both answered the questions of the priest; and there was a church full of people witnessing it. And their spouse and they) were not drunk.

It is particularly hard to hear when someone was married for 10, 15 or more years with children, to be told that they had “been living a lie”.

In such situations, there is so much emotion that logic has no foothold.

Yes - they responded to the tribunal (in none of the cases were they the petitioner) and they fought it tooth and nail.

And well after the decision was rendered, they are still fighting it.

So you may think that it cannot be said about cases decided by a tribunal; but that is for lack of ever coming across the evidence in real life - and for that I do not blame you; I would only say you are blessed for not ever having to be the witness of such emotional trauma.

What percentage of Roman Catholic marriages are valid? the Pope said that according to Cardinal Quarracino, it is only 50%. Would it be better to marry in the Orthodox Church where a much greater percentage of marriages are valid?
zenit.org/articles/francis-press-conference-on-return-flight-from-brazil-part-2/

 

[asd72]

I’m sorry but you’re one short. There are three conditions for mortal sin. One, grave matter. We all agree on that one. Two, full knowledge. You come up slightly short on that one, because simply being told so does not mean “full knowledge”. It means understanding its as well, otherwise the knowledge is incomplete.

Where you miss the point completely is on full consent of the will. A long-term sexual relationship might not be easy to break for many folks. Let’s see what the Holy Father said in Amoris Laetitia:

Note that he is quoting straight from the CCC. This is Catholic doctrine. That simply being told that a grave matter is a mortal sin makes one mortally culpable, is not.

That was I have an issue with - previous teaching states that the objective grave matter, means you cannot receive Holy Communion in this case, now it seems to be saying judgement in this situation should be subjective. See the parts of the documents I have posted below.

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO OF POPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE EPISCOPATE TO THE CLERGY AND TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE ROLE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY IN THE MODERN WORLD (22 Nov 1981)

e) 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. 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.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL (14 Sept 1994)

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

• Alberto Bovone
  Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
  Secretary

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an **objective situation **that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: “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 his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. 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”(7).

 

[St_Francis]

It would appear that you have not dealt with many people who have had a decree of nullity. I will not say I have dealt with a lot; but I have had more than one person whose marriage was called null go into a nuclear meltdown. They flat out could not understand, even when carefully and calmly explained, that they were wrong and the tribunal right. They had a very narrow and absolutist view of marriage. Try listening to someone in meltdown repeatedly say to you that they were there; the other person was there; they both answered the questions of the priest; and there was a church full of people witnessing it. And their spouse and they) were not drunk.

It is particularly hard to hear when someone was married for 10, 15 or more years with children, to be told that they had “been living a lie”.

In such situations, there is so much emotion that logic has no foothold.

Yes - they responded to the tribunal (in none of the cases were they the petitioner) and they fought it tooth and nail.

And well after the decision was rendered, they are still fighting it.

So you may think that it cannot be said about cases decided by a tribunal; but that is for lack of ever coming across the evidence in real life - and for that I do not blame you; I would only say you are blessed for not ever having to be the witness of such emotional trauma.

Well, the situation with divorce alone can be traumatic, so I can certainly understand that a spouse might react strongly to a decree of nullity.

However, what would a spouse thinks who discovers his or her marriage has been covertly declared null in the mere word of the other participant with no evidence by an untrained priest?

 

[PPeterson]

any number of spouses who simply cannot get their mind around the fact that a valid marriage takes a bit more than showing up sober and saying “I do” to the questions

It’s Interesting that taking a vow, living with a spouse for 20 years, and having children doesn’t necessarily mean you were married, but if on the other hand you divorce and remarry you are objectively without doubt committing adultery. What’s good for the goose!