Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[JimG]

What puzzles me is this: I have seen many comments regarding the need to avoid black and white thinking, the great diversity of situations, the need to deal with people where they are in their individual circumstances. Yet, there is already in place a system for dealing uniquely and individually with each person’s individual circumstances. It is the marriage tribunal.

As to black and white thinking, there is at least one thing that is black and white: Regardless of how it may be determined, through a tribunal process, through an internal forum, through the application of correctly formed conscience, a marriage is either valid or it is not. It can’t be both valid and not valid simultaneously. If one is in a second marriage, it makes a difference whether the first marriage is valid. If it is, one can not be married to the second spouse.

 

[OraLabora]

What puzzles me is this: I have seen many comments regarding the need to avoid black and white thinking, the great diversity of situations, the need to deal with people where they are in their individual circumstances. Yet, there is already in place a system for dealing uniquely and individually with each person’s individual circumstances. It is the marriage tribunal.

As to black and white thinking, there is at least one thing that is black and white: Regardless of how it may be determined, through a tribunal process, through an internal forum, through the application of correctly formed conscience, a marriage is either valid or it is not. It can’t be both valid and not valid simultaneously. If one is in a second marriage, it makes a difference whether the first marriage is valid. If it is, one can not be married to the second spouse.

You are missing one vital point brought up in AL and that is the subjective culpability for a sexually active second or irregular union. The Holy Father suggests that mitigating circumstances may reduce the culpability for the grave sin to non-mortal. This applies to all irregular unions including the D&R. It does not recognize that the second union, in the case of the D & R, is valid, it merely establishes that the couple don’t bear mortal culpability for it.

It may be somewhat less controversial for those living together with only a civil union or a de facto union and no previous union; the process of gradualism (a concept attributed to S. JP II in AL) coupled to a assessment that the couple aren’t morally culpable, may apply. It was applied in my case when I returned to the Church and my wife was initially not interested in convalidation. When after some time she agreed to convalidation, the situation was regularized but until then I was between a rock and a hard place, sacramentally and my wise priest told me I should receive the sacraments as long as I was making reasonable efforts to resolve the situation. It took longer than I had hoped, but when the time was right I jumped and my wife was receptive.

I should point out that I also pursued radical sanation but the chancery office of the diocese said no.

My spiritual director later said that I needed the grace from the sacraments to complete the process, and I’m inclined to agree. Please note: I am not interested in an argument about whether my pastor or SD were right or wrong. My SD was a holy and orthodox Benedictine monk and priest. He is in declining health and I would prefer prayers for him instead of arguing about whether he was right or wrong in his counsel.

 

[Eichelbaum]

He is in declining health and I would prefer prayers for him instead of arguing about whether he was right or wrong in his counsel.

(Forgive me for being so off-topic, but I’ll include him in my prayers.)

 

[OraLabora]

(Forgive me for being so off-topic, but I’ll include him in my prayers.)

Thank you! I am very fond of him.

 

[JimG]

You are missing one vital point brought up in AL and that is the subjective culpability for a sexually active second or irregular union. The Holy Father suggests that mitigating circumstances may reduce the culpability for the grave sin to non-mortal. This applies to all irregular unions including the D&R. It does not recognize that the second union, in the case of the D & R, is valid, it merely establishes that the couple don’t bear mortal culpability for it.

It may be somewhat less controversial for those living together with only a civil union or a de facto union and no previous union; the process of gradualism (a concept attributed to S. JP II in AL) coupled to a assessment that the couple aren’t morally culpable, may apply. It was applied in my case when I returned to the Church and my wife was initially not interested in convalidation. When after some time she agreed to convalidation, the situation was regularized but until then I was between a rock and a hard place, sacramentally and my wise priest told me I should receive the sacraments as long as I was making reasonable efforts to resolve the situation. It took longer than I had hoped, but when the time was right I jumped and my wife was receptive.

I should point out that I also pursued radical sanation but the chancery office of the diocese said no.

My spiritual director later said that I needed the grace from the sacraments to complete the process, and I’m inclined to agree. Please note: I am not interested in an argument about whether my pastor or SD were right or wrong. My SD was a holy and orthodox Benedictine monk and priest. He is in declining health and I would prefer prayers for him instead of arguing about whether he was right or wrong in his counsel.

In your case, it seems, you only had one wife, you were just not married in the Church. That was the irregularity. But when a second marriage is involved, it seems to me that one should be concerned about the validity of the first marriage.

As to culpability, can one say, for example: “my first marriage is still valid and so my second marriage is not. But none of it was my fault; therefore I can receive communion even while having marital relations with a spouse to whom I am not really married”?

I don’t doubt your spiritual director’s judgment. But when it comes to divorce and remarriage, deciding the matter just on the basis of culpability without regard to validity pretty much eliminates the need for a marriage tribunal. Not only that, it means that the decision is delegated to the individual confessor’s level, which could well encourage ‘priest shopping.’

 

[irenaeus1]

You are missing one vital point brought up in AL and that is the subjective culpability for a sexually active second or irregular union. The Holy Father suggests that mitigating circumstances may reduce the culpability for the grave sin to non-mortal. This applies to all irregular unions including the D&R. It does not recognize that the second union, in the case of the D & R, is valid, it merely establishes that the couple don’t bear mortal culpability for it.

It may be somewhat less controversial for those living together with only a civil union or a de facto union and no previous union; the process of gradualism (a concept attributed to S. JP II in AL) coupled to a assessment that the couple aren’t morally culpable, may apply. It was applied in my case when I returned to the Church and my wife was initially not interested in convalidation. When after some time she agreed to convalidation, the situation was regularized but until then I was between a rock and a hard place, sacramentally and my wise priest told me I should receive the sacraments as long as I was making reasonable efforts to resolve the situation. It took longer than I had hoped, but when the time was right I jumped and my wife was receptive.

I should point out that I also pursued radical sanation but the chancery office of the diocese said no.

My spiritual director later said that I needed the grace from the sacraments to complete the process, and I’m inclined to agree. Please note: I am not interested in an argument about whether my pastor or SD were right or wrong. My SD was a holy and orthodox Benedictine monk and priest. He is in declining health and I would prefer prayers for him instead of arguing about whether he was right or wrong in his counsel.

First, sorry to hear about the declining health of your priest friend. I will pray for him.

I am not speaking specific to your spiritual director, but in general… so with all due respect (and I sincerely mean that), the issue regarding culpability seems a cop-out. After meeting with a priest for spiritual direction and counsel and the priest aids the individual in discerning the situation, one would think that during the assessment, the true nature of the situation would be discovered by the individual such that the sin would now become mortal; i.e., the individual would understand that the ‘irregular’ union involves grave matter (adultery), and the choice to continue with sexual relations in this situation rather than abstain is of their own volition.

 

[PatrickC]

The reality is that on the ground, your priests who were probably already giving communion to the divorced and remarried outside the church will continue doing so with papapal backing. Those who were ‘on the fence’ will see it as a license to do so. It will be a common reality in 20 years, and you and the infallible vicar will have to deal with it. As an Orthodox Christian, I see it more as the inevitable outcome of your understanding of ecclesiastical divorce (the practice of granting annulments on 20 year old or more marriages, looking for a loophole around divorce) than an acceptance of communion for those in grave sin. It’s really your issue to struggle with, not mine, but let’s just be honest. 'We know we’ve been sort of granting divorces under another name with loose qualifications for centuries, let’s not lose these people too, for whom it actually matters what we think. ’

 

[Tomdstone]

The reality is that on the ground, your priests who were probably already giving communion to the divorced and remarried outside the church will continue doing so with papapal backing. Those who were ‘on the fence’ will see it as a license to do so. It will be a common reality in 20 years, and you and the infallible vicar will have to deal with it. As an Orthodox Christian, I see it more as the inevitable outcome of your understanding of ecclesiastical divorce (the practice of granting annulments on 20 year old or more marriages, looking for a loophole around divorce) than an acceptance of communion for those in grave sin. It’s really your issue to struggle with, not mine, but let’s just be honest. 'We know we’ve been sort of granting divorces under another name with loose qualifications for centuries, let’s not lose these people too, for whom it actually matters what we think. ’

Yes, even His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper has said that in some cases a marriage annulment is a divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

At the Last Supper, did they tell Judas not to receive Communion?

That’s why he wasn’t there for Communion, they found out his wife wasn’t baptised, and so didn’t have a dispensation for disparity of cult and was therefore living in sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Considering that there are bishops and theologians on both sides of the issue, then yes, someone necessarily has to be mistaken, even if sincere. So for example, either Francis, Kasper, Schoborn, Marx, etc. or John Paul II, Benedict, Burke, Sarah, Mueller, etc. They cannot both be correct.

Yes, if they were the ones actually interviewed the theological arguments would have been stronger.

 

[pnewton]

Considering that there are bishops and theologians on both sides of the issue, then yes, someone necessarily has to be mistaken, even if sincere. So for example, either Francis, Kasper, Schoborn, Marx, etc. or John Paul II, Benedict, Burke, Sarah, Mueller, etc. They cannot both be correct.

What are you referring to as “the issue.” They can all be correct as to doctrine that has been defined. If the issue is the permanence of marriage, adultery is sin, or one cannot receive communion after committing a mortal sin until one has been to confession, they all agree. If the issue is, as Cardinal Burke believes that it is doctrine that anyone who is remarried without an annulment cannot receive communion, then I would say that neither Saint John Paul or Pope Benedict defined this doctrine. In fact, it is not something that even the majority of bishops at the last synod agreed was doctrine. I do not agree with it because of the logical inconsistencies that I have posted on many times. Yet this is all good as there is no reason we have to agree on a matter that has not been defined.

 

[pianistclare]

(Forgive me for being so off-topic, but I’ll include him in my prayers.)

Me too friend!

 

[St_Francis]

You are missing one vital point brought up in AL and that is the subjective culpability for a sexually active second or irregular union. The Holy Father suggests that mitigating circumstances may reduce the culpability for the grave sin to non-mortal. This applies to all irregular unions including the D&R. It does not recognize that the second union, in the case of the D & R, is valid, it merely establishes that the couple don’t bear mortal culpability for it.

It may be somewhat less controversial for those living together with only a civil union or a de facto union and no previous union; the process of gradualism (a concept attributed to S. JP II in AL) coupled to a assessment that the couple aren’t morally culpable, may apply. It was applied in my case when I returned to the Church and my wife was initially not interested in convalidation. When after some time she agreed to convalidation, the situation was regularized but until then I was between a rock and a hard place, sacramentally and my wise priest told me I should receive the sacraments as long as I was making reasonable efforts to resolve the situation. It took longer than I had hoped, but when the time was right I jumped and my wife was receptive.

I should point out that I also pursued radical sanation but the chancery office of the diocese said no.

My spiritual director later said that I needed the grace from the sacraments to complete the process, and I’m inclined to agree. Please note: I am not interested in an argument about whether my pastor or SD were right or wrong. My SD was a holy and orthodox Benedictine monk and priest. He is in declining health and I would prefer prayers for him instead of arguing about whether he was right or wrong in his counsel.

The problem is that we are discussing the situation of those who are divorced and remarried, which is a totally different situation from yours. Your marriage was the first for both of you: you were both free to marry.

As the couple themselves are the ministers of marriage, all that was left to do was to obtain a measure of officiality from the Church.

All this is very different from the issue of the D&R, and you seem to not understand that. A person who has been married is presumed validly married. All that can happen to that first marriage is to discover that it was not in fact valid at the time of the marriage vows.

Until the invalidity is discovered, neither person involved is free to both fully marry and partake of the Eucharist.

In the case of the D&R, culpability is sort of aside from the point of going forward unless a change is made. I may or may not have been culpable for my past actions, but going forward, I am. A person involved in a D&R situation may or may not have been culpable upon entering into the situation, but is culpable for the future actions.

 

[OraLabora]

The problem is that we are discussing the situation of those who are divorced and remarried, which is a totally different situation from yours. Your marriage was the first for both of you: you were both free to marry.

But… we weren’t validly married so we were thus committing the grave matter of fornication. We were free to marry but because I am Catholic (my wife isn’t), I was duty-bound to do it according to the laws of the Church.

As the couple themselves are the ministers of marriage, all that was left to do was to obtain a measure of officiality from the Church.

No. The marriage was not sacramentally valid due to two factors: no dispensation for disparity of cult, lack of canonical form. Invalid marriage = non-sacramental marriage = objectively sinful situation. You cannot minister a valid sacrament without the proper faculties, and not being validly married means you do not have those faculties. We only became ministers of our own marriage after having it witnessed by a priest according to canonical form.

All this is very different from the issue of the D&R, and you seem to not understand that. A person who has been married is presumed validly married. All that can happen to that first marriage is to discover that it was not in fact valid at the time of the marriage vows.

You’re wrong. Trust me I do recognize the difference, I lived for several years with the uncertainty of my situation and discussed it frequently with my spiritual director. Up to the point where we were validly married through a convalidation ceremony (after undergoing the pre-nuptial examination by the priest), we were invalidly married, living in a sinful circumstance, and committing the grave matter of fornication.

The difference, in fact the only substantial difference, is that we were free to pursue validation of our union because of no prior impediments. The D & R are in a similar situation up until that point, except that is is adultery instead of fornication. But they cannot take the subsequent step to validate their union unless the prior union(s) that are impediments, are declared null. Prior to any form of validation, they are both objectively gravely sinful situations for similar (lack of sexual continence) reasons.

In the case of the D&R, culpability is sort of aside from the point of going forward unless a change is made. I may or may not have been culpable for my past actions, but going forward, I am. A person involved in a D&R situation may or may not have been culpable upon entering into the situation, but is culpable for the future actions.

The question, and it is brought up in AL, is whether one is mortally culpable going forward. I agree there is ongoing culpability but just as the CCC sates for another sexual sin, there can be mitigating factors that reduce culpability, including longstanding habit. In fact the Holy Father quotes that extract from the CCC in Amoris Laetitia. I just happen to agree with his thinking, the prevalent conservatism of CAF notwithstanding.

 

[irenaeus1]

What are you referring to as “the issue.” They can all be correct as to doctrine that has been defined. If the issue is the permanence of marriage, adultery is sin, or one cannot receive communion after committing a mortal sin until one has been to confession, they all agree. If the issue is, as Cardinal Burke believes that it is doctrine that anyone who is remarried without an annulment cannot receive communion, then I would say that neither Saint John Paul or Pope Benedict defined this doctrine. In fact, it is not something that even the majority of bishops at the last synod agreed was doctrine. I do not agree with it because of the logical inconsistencies that I have posted on many times. Yet this is all good as there is no reason we have to agree on a matter that has not been defined.

“The issue” of which I am referring is the admission to Holy Communion of one who is divorced and civilly remarried who has not attained a declaration of nullity. I am trying to be specific here so as to avoid confusion. Obviously, if one obtains an annulment, they are free to remarry… nothing new as this was the case prior to Amoris Laetitia. So “the issue” is specifically for those whose ‘first’ marriages are presumed valid (because either they have not yet sought a declaration of nullity or they received a verdict that their ‘first’ marriage is indeed valid and they are not free to marry), yet are admiited to Holy Communion while in a subsequent “irregular” marriage; i.e., objectively adulterous union.

So, if we are going to claim that marriage is indissoluble, thus claiming that no Church teaching has actually changed, fine. Although merely asserting such does not necessarily mean that is the case. But let’s assume that the indissolubility of marriage is held firm by both groups, then one must concede (if intellectually honest) that doctrine must elsewhere have changed in order to admit divorced and civilly remarried individuals to receive Holy Communion. Either one or more of the following MUST be waived:

• Relations with someone who is not one’s spouse is no longer a grave sin
• Repentance (which includes a firm purpose of amendment) is no longer necessary to be absolved of grave sin
• The need to be in the state of grace is no longer needed to be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion

One of these Church teachings has NECESSARILY been waived or changed in order for “the issue” to be licitly made available. If not, please explain as I am personally struggling with this as an issue of integrity and truth.

And you are correct that Saint John Paul did not state that “anyone who is remarried without an annulment cannot receive communion”, but he gave clear instruction of how this is to be the case such that Church teaching remains intact, not to mention St. John Paul stated that admission to the Eucharist can ONLY be granted to one who has repented which includes undertaking a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

 

[St_Francis]

I had assumed that my explantion explained how you were able to receive. Now I do not understand how you were so permitted.

Say a D&R person goes to a priest and the priest suggests the internal forum. The person, not knowing any better, thinks this is all right.

The fact thinks it is all right doesn’t make it do, and he could not later use it to justify making a change such as some suggest is made in AL.

But… we weren’t validly married so we were thus committing the grave matter of fornication. We were free to marry but because I am Catholic (my wife isn’t), I was duty-bound to do it according to the laws of the Church.

No. The marriage was not sacramentally valid due to two factors: no dispensation for disparity of cult, lack of canonical form. Invalid marriage = non-sacramental marriage = objectively sinful situation. You cannot minister a valid sacrament without the proper faculties, and not being validly married means you do not have those faculties. We only became ministers of our own marriage after having it witnessed by a priest according to canonical form.

You’re wrong. Trust me I do recognize the difference, I lived for several years with the uncertainty of my situation and discussed it frequently with my spiritual director. Up to the point where we were validly married through a convalidation ceremony (after undergoing the pre-nuptial examination by the priest), we were invalidly married, living in a sinful circumstance, and committing the grave matter of fornication.

The difference, in fact the only substantial difference, is that we were free to pursue validation of our union because of no prior impediments. The D & R are in a similar situation up until that point, except that is is adultery instead of fornication. But they cannot take the subsequent step to validate their union unless the prior union(s) that are impediments, are declared null. Prior to any form of validation, they are both objectively gravely sinful situations for similar (lack of sexual continence) reasons.

The question, and it is brought up in AL, is whether one is mortally culpable going forward. I agree there is ongoing culpability but just as the CCC sates for another sexual sin, there can be mitigating factors that reduce culpability, including longstanding habit. In fact the Holy Father quotes that extract from the CCC in Amoris Laetitia. I just happen to agree with his thinking, the prevalent conservatism of CAF notwithstanding.

I think that the point of a clear line between objective mortal sin and reception of the sacraments is to encourage people to overcome those “mitigating factors,” which it seems should be applied after rather than before. To say to a penitent, well, if you fall into this sin again, don’t worry because you have a mitigating factor would lead to the sin of presumption, no?

 

[JimG]

Doctrine vs practice. We can say, the doctrine has not changed. Marriage is indissoluble. Marriage lasts until death separates us. We continue to proclaim Jesus’ teaching. One who divorces his spouse and marries another commits adultery. Nothing has changed.

But.

If you didn’t know what you were doing, the divorce was not your fault. You remarried in good faith. You have a new family to support. You are not culpable. So, you can receive communion.

The end result is: Marriage is indissoluble. Divorce is not allowed. But it doesn’t really matter. It has no effect in practice. You are still a communicant, regardless. So we proclaim a doctrine which has no effect on our lives. We can still do what we want.

 

[Ender]

The question, and it is brought up in AL, is whether one is mortally culpable going forward. I agree there is ongoing culpability but just as the CCC sates for another sexual sin, there can be mitigating factors that reduce culpability, including longstanding habit. In fact the Holy Father quotes that extract from the CCC in Amoris Laetitia. I just happen to agree with his thinking, the prevalent conservatism of CAF notwithstanding.

Just to be clear, the sin we are concerned with in these situations is adultery, which is defined as both grave and intrinsically evil, meaning there are no circumstances that justify it. What it seems is being suggested is that despite all this, there are circumstances that would allow people to continue committing adultery and to receive communion.

It appears we are being told there are no circumstances that justify an intrinsic evil…except when there are.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

I had assumed that my explantion explained how you were able to receive. Now I do not understand how you were so permitted.

You would have to ask the priest that advised me, this is 19 years ago. I went with his advice and my SD confirmed the validity of the advice. The Holy Father speaks of “gradualism” (quoting from Familiaris Consortio) in AL.

I think that the point of a clear line between objective mortal sin and reception of the sacraments is to encourage people to overcome those “mitigating factors,” which it seems should be applied after rather than before. To say to a penitent, well, if you fall into this sin again, don’t worry because you have a mitigating factor would lead to the sin of presumption, no?

I don’t think this is what is being said at all. You need to realize that people cannot act unilaterally in a couple situation. The notion that I could have maintained my marriage to a non-Catholic spouse by unilaterally imposing sexual continence on her has no grounding in reality. The same situation could apply in a D & R situation where the partner petitioning for readmission to communion is married to a non-Catholic. It is all fine and well to encourage folks to “overcome” these mitigating factors but a realistic assessment of the situation may reveal it to be difficult to impossible without causing rupture of the second union if the other spouse is non-cooperative, and especially non-Catholic.

Adultery is no different than any other grave sin, it requires three elements to incur mortal culpability. Only the hard of heart cannot recognize that an objectively sinful situation may have mitigating factors. The Pope is merely being realistic about human limits, which vary from person to person and couple to couple. Those capable of more should be firmly encouraged to give more. Those currently unable to do so need more gentle care. The Holy Father is merely asking his pastors to make the distinction between the two. The Rule of St. Benedict, in its humanity, recognizes that monks are differently abled and makes accommodations for the weak, but expects effort from the strong.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But… we weren’t validly married so we were thus committing the grave matter of fornication. We were free to marry but because I am Catholic (my wife isn’t), I was duty-bound to do it according to the laws of the Church.

No. The marriage was not sacramentally valid due to two factors: no dispensation for disparity of cult, lack of canonical form. Invalid marriage = non-sacramental marriage = objectively sinful situation. You cannot minister a valid sacrament without the proper faculties, and not being validly married means you do not have those faculties. We only became ministers of our own marriage after having it witnessed by a priest according to canonical form.

You’re wrong. Trust me I do recognize the difference, I lived for several years with the uncertainty of my situation and discussed it frequently with my spiritual director. Up to the point where we were validly married through a convalidation ceremony (after undergoing the pre-nuptial examination by the priest), we were invalidly married, living in a sinful circumstance, and committing the grave matter of fornication.

The difference, in fact the only substantial difference, is that we were free to pursue validation of our union because of no prior impediments. The D & R are in a similar situation up until that point, except that is is adultery instead of fornication. But they cannot take the subsequent step to validate their union unless the prior union(s) that are impediments, are declared null. Prior to any form of validation, they are both objectively gravely sinful situations for similar (lack of sexual continence) reasons.

The question, and it is brought up in AL, is whether one is mortally culpable going forward. I agree there is ongoing culpability but just as the CCC sates for another sexual sin, there can be mitigating factors that reduce culpability, including longstanding habit. In fact the Holy Father quotes that extract from the CCC in Amoris Laetitia. I just happen to agree with his thinking, the prevalent conservatism of CAF notwithstanding.

I would not be so fast to assume fornication is on the table.
Sex in a definitely non sacramental civill marriage is different in kind from sex with my cohabiting girlfriend where no public consent was exchanged. With the former enough elements of a marriage exist to make a Rad San work, but not with the latter.
If your children are not and never were bastards how can the acts thar begot them be called fornication?