Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[Ender]

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.

Does this logic not apply equally to abortion? If there can be mitigating factors for one intrinsically evil, grave sin surely there can be mitigating factors for all of them.

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.

The bottom line being that at some point we are allowed to indulge our cravings without it being considered gravely sinful, regardless of what they are. Isn’t this the inevitable result of “being realistic”?

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.

Did the Rule of St. Benedict allow the weaker monks to sin with impunity, or did it simply expect less in the way of positive contributions? That heroism is not expected doesn’t mean that sin should be tolerated.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“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.

Correct me if I am mistaken but I believe a Tribunal only finds nullity, it cannot prove validity.
Like any court, if a person is not found guilty on this occasion that does not prove their innocence. Innocence continues to be presumed, not proven.

Tribunals regularly fail to confirm a particular attack on the presumed validity of a marriage through technical lack of required evidence or they never conclude due to lack of money.
Such failures hardly prove validity… which remains publicly unknown but hardly invulnerable to later findings.

 

[OraLabora]

Does this logic not apply equally to abortion? If there can be mitigating factors for one intrinsically evil, grave sin surely there can be mitigating factors for all of them.

Do you think that pregnant teenagers have never been pressured into an abortion by a violent boyfriend or parents worried about the family’s reputation?

Of course there can be mitigating factors.

Did the Rule of St. Benedict allow the weaker monks to sin with impunity, or did it simply expect less in the way of positive contributions? That heroism is not expected doesn’t mean that sin should be tolerated.

Yet the Rule is explicit about second and third chances, and progressive discipline when sin does occur. The Abbot is not to discourage the penitent but rather encourage him:

Let the Abbot be most solicitous
in his concern for delinquent brethren,
for “it is not the healthy but the sick who need a physician” (Matt 9:12)
And therefore he ought to use every means
that a wise physician would use.
Let him send senpectae,
that is, brethren of mature years and wisdom,
who may as it were secretly console the wavering brother
and induce him to make humble satisfaction;
comforting him
that he may not “be overwhelmed by excessive grief” (2 Cor. 2:7),
but that, as the Apostle says,
charity may be strengthened in him (2 Cor. 2:8).
And let everyone pray for him.

For the Abbot must have the utmost solicitude
and exercise all prudence and diligence
lest he lose any of the sheep entrusted to him.
Let him know
that what he has undertaken is the care of weak souls
and not a tyranny over strong ones;
and let him fear the Prophet’s warning
through which God says,
“What you saw to be fat you took to yourselves,
and what was feeble you cast away” (Ezec. 34:3,4).
Let him rather imitate the loving example of the Good Shepherd
who left the ninety-nine sheep in the mountains
and went to look for the one sheep that had gone astray,
on whose weakness He had such compassion
that He deigned to place it on His own sacred shoulders
and thus carry it back to the flock (Luke 15:4-5).

 

[OraLabora]

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?

You are right that a radical sanation was possible in my case, but the diocese strongly discouraged me from taking that route (in fact they said “no”). Instead I was told to pursue convalidation. Fortunately it coincided with my wife becoming much more open to the idea and to Catholicism (particularly the Benedictine flavour) in general. So we ended up having our marriage convalidated.

If I hadn’t been baptized or Catholic of course it would have been a valid natural but not sacramental marriage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“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.

There is another proposition you may not have considered.
That the objective contradiction of Indissolubility (done in a variety of ways eg adulterous sexual acts, Divorce, civil marriage even with continence) allows “parvity of matter” - just as a trad moral theologian would say wrt the grave sin we call theft.

That is, the matter is always assumed grave, but it is admitted that there are situations that admit a judgement of “lightness of matter”.

In this regard it is interesting to note that the Church sees two Commandments that address adultery. The 6th and 9th. For Jesus said that adultery can be done by covetous eyes alone.
This is a form of theft.

Some cases of contradicting Indissolubility look to me more like sins against the 9th. eg continent irregulars. They do not have sex but they have,outwardly at least, stolen another man’s wife. Like theft, there are circumstances that render the grave matter light. EG for the sake of kids, little fault for the first break up, no hope of reestablishing the first marriage.
That may be why such are allowed private Communion. There is no personal unworthiness in venial sin.

Why are the above then not allowed public Communion?
It is simply Church discipline, too many fellow Catholics are not mature enough to see the objective gravity is light in some cases.

As is the case with some on this thread perhaps .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are right that a radical sanation was possible in my case, but the diocese strongly discouraged me from taking that route (in fact they said “no”). Instead I was told to pursue convalidation. Fortunately it coincided with my wife becoming much more open to the idea and to Catholicism (particularly the Benedictine flavour) in general. So we ended up having our marriage convalidated.

If I hadn’t been baptized or Catholic of course it would have been a valid natural but not sacramental marriage.

Yes rad sans are rare and discouraged, they are the black sheep of Canon Lawyers because if you try to analyse the theology behind them it quickly becomes clear that traditional marriage theology starts getting very shaky indeed!

My wife is Buddhist background and culture. I asked for a Rad San but the Monsignor sweet talked the wife into a convalidation.
Both of us have no doubt we validly exchanged vows before God on our civil wedding day despite being made to repeat them for a convalidation.
We did so just to please the Mons. Just as I sat in the back pew without communion alone for the best part of 10 years. Complete silliness, but I was obedient. I do not consider myself a fornicator in those 10 years. Sure, I wasn’t regularly or sacramentally married (still aren’t as the Mrs isn’t baptised), but neither was I having irresponsible sex .

 

[irenaeus1]

A comment I saw on an article regarding Amoris Laetitia:

Father Joe: “Fred, with your divorce to Mary and second civil marriage to Jane, you are committing adultery and therefore in a state of serious sin.” Fred: “No Father, I don’t believe I am.” Father Joe: “OK…good enough for me! I’ll see you at Communion on Sunday!”

So now any mortal sin (murder, theft, calumny, abortion, etc) is now subject to what the sinner “believes” to be sin? Poor St. John the Baptist…lost his head for nothing. After all, he should have considered the culpability of Herod; John the Baptist would have realized that it was not worth martyrdom to teach as if matters were black and white; hiding behind teachings of Judaism; casting stones at people’s lives. Similar for John Fisher and Thomas More… they could have spared their lives if only they considered King Henry VIII’s culpability. Again, not worth dying for something subjective.

 

[OraLabora]

A comment I saw on an article regarding Amoris Laetitia:

So now any mortal sin (murder, theft, calumny, abortion, etc) is now subject to what the sinner “believes” to be sin? Poor St. John the Baptist…lost his head for nothing. After all, he should have considered the culpability of Herod; John the Baptist would have realized that it was not worth martyrdom to teach as if matters were black and white; hiding behind teachings of Judaism; casting stones at people’s lives. Similar for John Fisher and Thomas More… they could have spared their lives if only they considered King Henry VIII’s culpability. Again, not worth dying for something subjective.

The comment is hyperbole, pure and simple. AL does not even remotely suggest this, nor does AL change the fact that there will always be and have always been people who play fast and loose with sin, and D & R who go up for communion in complete disregard for Church teaching existed well before AL or Francis’s papacy. I happen to know some.

 

[JimG]

A comment I saw on an article regarding Amoris Laetitia:

So now any mortal sin (murder, theft, calumny, abortion, etc) is now subject to what the sinner “believes” to be sin? Poor St. John the Baptist…lost his head for nothing. After all, he should have considered the culpability of Herod; John the Baptist would have realized that it was not worth martyrdom to teach as if matters were black and white; hiding behind teachings of Judaism; casting stones at people’s lives. Similar for John Fisher and Thomas More… they could have spared their lives if only they considered King Henry VIII’s culpability. Again, not worth dying for something subjective.

Or Jesus maybe should have said: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery, unless of course there are mitigating circumstances. So don’t get too worked up over this hard saying.” It would have set his disciples minds more at ease instead of leaving them troubled.

In any case, one hears from Fr. Z that tribunals have already received calls from some to advise them that the pope has said that they can receive communion if their conscience is clear; and their conscience is clear. If such a loophole was indeed part of the intent of the pertinent footnote, then individual confessors have been delegated to make their own decisions, without regard to tribunals or even their own bishops.

 

[OraLabora]

Or Jesus maybe should have said: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery, unless of course there are mitigating circumstances. So don’t get too worked up over this hard saying.” It would have set his disciples minds more at ease instead of leaving them troubled.

In any case, one hears from Fr. Z that tribunals have already received calls from some to advise them that the pope has said that they can receive communion if their conscience is clear; and their conscience is clear. If such a loophole was indeed part of the intent of the pertinent footnote, then individual confessors have been delegated to make their own decisions, without regard to tribunals or even their own bishops.

Yet more hyperbole.

Read AL. It says nothing of the sort. The issue of people calling has nothing to do with AL but everything to do with the media’s shoddy reporting on it, and just as we have seen on the other thread on this topic the conservative media is just as guilty of misguided headlines. And here you present perfect proof of misguided conservative commentary.

Try sticking to what AL actually says and debating those points, not the wild speculations of febrile anti-Francis commentators.

 

[fin]

As one commented on the Register article:

God bless this faithful and courageous panel to speak the truth. Unfortunately it seems that this is the only EWTN program host who is willing to carry on Mother Angelica’s zeal and boldness in defending our Lord’s clear teachings by challenging even the top hierarchy in the Church.

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/ewtns-world-over-panel-highlights-problems-with-amoris-laetitia

BTW, it’s Mother Angelica’s birthday!

 

[JimG]

In the course of a longer exegesis, Deacon Jim Russell says this:
“Readers, did you notice that Schonborn clearly states that Francis intends all this “discernment” to be in keeping with Familiaris Consortio and its paragraph 84—the precise paragraph in which we read: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried”?”
Yet, is this really what Cardinal Schonborn means? Is it the intent that A.L. in no way contradicts Familiaris Consortio?

More importantly, is this what bishops and confessors will take as the meaning of A.L. as they implement it?

 

[pianistclare]

it would be nice if some of the CAF priest members would weigh in.

 

[OraLabora]

it would be nice if some of the CAF priest members would weigh in.

I’m guessing the orthodox ones without an agenda are all prayerfully reading and meditating on it

I know the monks at our abbey haven’t finished reading it. It has been their daily refectory reading since it came out 2 weeks ago. Naturally they are doing it slowly and prayerfully lest they jump to hasty conclusions.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m guessing the orthodox ones without an agenda are all prayerfully reading and meditating on it

I know the monks at our abbey haven’t finished reading it. It has been their daily refectory reading since it came out 2 weeks ago. Naturally they are doing it slowly and prayerfully lest they jump to hasty conclusions.

Which underscores the fact that priests are smarter than people give them credit for.

 

[pnewton]

• 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

The problem with the syllogism is that two terms need defining. The first is grave sin. If we define “grave sin” as that sin which has grave matter, one can commit grave sin and still be in a state of grace, which is the second term. What is “as state of grace?” It does not mean we are sinful. It means that we have deliberately taken action that is very serious with full awareness and knowledge of what we did to cut ourselves off from God.

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.

This can be changed. We are never required by doctrine to presume anything that imputes sin. Also, since the objective reality of the validity of the first marriage is not established by a decree of nullity, there might be a case where such a decree can be known to be in error.

 

[pnewton]

Does this logic not apply equally to abortion? If there can be mitigating factors for one intrinsically evil, grave sin surely there can be mitigating factors for all of them.

It applies to* all* sin. This is why we are admonished against judging people’s spiritual state.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Canon lawyer Ed Condon:

Francis has left Church teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried absolutely intact

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/04/08/francis-has-left-church-teaching-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried-absolutely-intact/

He’s right. Amoris Laetitia states that divorced and remarried Catholics may take communion if, after going to confession, they live chastely - no sexual relations ever - until a Church annulment is obtained and they marry in the Church. There’s nothing unclear about it. Anyone who is divorced and remarried, sans annulment, and is having sexual relations is living in mortal sin and may not receive holy communion.

It couldn’t be more clear.

 

[pnewton]

. Anyone who is divorced and remarried, sans annulment, and is having sexual relations is living in mortal sin and may not receive holy communion…

Does such an act remove one out of a state of grace? I got the same impression that Bishop Barron did:
wordonfire.org/resources/blog/bishop-barron-qa-on-amoris-laetitiathe-joy-of-love/5137/
*But the Pope is insisting that one cannot move, without further ado, from the fact of objective disorder to the declaration of mortal sin. *

 

[JimG]

He’s right. Amoris Laetitia states that divorced and remarried Catholics may take communion if, after going to confession, they live chastely - no sexual relations ever - until a Church annulment is obtained and they marry in the Church. There’s nothing unclear about it. Anyone who is divorced and remarried, sans annulment, and is having sexual relations is living in mortal sin and may not receive holy communion.

It couldn’t be more clear.

So, nothing has changed?