Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[OraLabora]

Priest are to minister to people, not situations.

Important point. Medicine sort of has the same dilemma, in that there’s an inclination to treat a statistic rather than a person, and doctors need to remind themselves that each patient is an individual. I had a recent bad episode with this, when a statin was prescribed to me but which was inappropriate for my specific situation (high-intensity muscle exercise; I am an avid cyclist)

A priest must be a physician to a soul, not to a law; his job is to save the soul, not protect the law at all costs. In the Rule of St. Benedict the abbot must measure the discipline he provides so as to not discourage the penitent. If he uses too powerful a medicine he may discourage the weak, or if he uses the same medicine uniformly for everyone, he may discourage and drive away the weak, and not sufficiently challenge the strong to turn him away from sin.

We cannot always fall back on “church teaching” just as we cannot always fall back on a statin to treat cholesterol in all cases and must sometimes deviate from the established protocols. Church teaching provides a framework for the priest to work with, but he may need to exceptionally exit that framework to be able to save a soul in distress; if he loses the soul for having applied too strong a medicine, it weighs as much on his shoulders as the lost soul’s. AL is tentatively telling priests that it is OK to do that on an exceptional basis. But it also says it is not OK to do it across the board or for people who cavalierly flaunt the rules, but nor is it OK to refuse to do it across the board.

It’s actually a very “latin” way of thinking, which I know some folks on CAF have a hard time getting their heads around as they tend to see a law as an absolute. In French we say “the exception confirms the rule”, meaning that the rule, or law, is just because it can accommodate an unforeseen circumstance. A civilian aircraft can land on a restricted military base in a life-threatening emergency when there’s no alternative. It is against the “law”, but it is tolerated. It doesn’t mean you can land there willy-nilly when you feel like it, and the crew might be faced with a mountain of paperwork afterwards. Similarly, the use the Eucharist in exceptional cases where it normally wouldn’t be allowed because the priest discerns it’s necessary to save a soul doesn’t make the law invalid nor give every barred person the right to receive. Amoris Laetitia is very, very clear on that point.

Again we need to stop thinking like lawyers and more like physicians.

 

[Brendan_64]

A priest must be a physician to a soul, not to a law; his job is to save the soul, not protect the law at all costs.

But it is not the priest who saves souls, it is Christ who saves souls. The notion that a priest put himself in such a position of authority that he can effectively say, “It is my judgement that Christ’s law does not apply in this instance,” would seem to be a major over-stepping of his authority.

It is one thing to determine that there is a very compelling likelihood that a former marriage was actually invalid (but that rare circumstances exist that prevent the annulment process from taking place) but it is an entirely different thing to make a judgement that Christ’s law does not apply in a particular case.

Pope Francis has not said in Amoris Laetitia that people whose first marriages were valid can now receive Communion. He has not said this at all. That would also be a rejection what John Paul II stated in Familiaris Consortio. Pope Francis has not said this at all.

The following article from the National Catholic Register is very good regarding this issue.

ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-a-hymn-to-indissolubility-and-fidelity/

 

[JimG]

So the takeaway is that it may be possible for a Catholic to continue having sex with someone else’s spouse and still receive communion with a clear conscience.

Maybe it’s simpler than I thought.

 

[OraLabora]

But it is not the priest who saves souls, it is Christ who saves souls. The notion that a priest put himself in such a position of authority that he can effectively say, “It is my judgement that Christ’s law does not apply in this instance,” would seem to be a major over-stepping of his authority.

Then Christ is the physician, and the priest the nurse administering the medicine. More like a nurse-practioner because (s)he has some leeway on what treatment protocol to follow and selecting the appropriate medication which AL says may include the sacraments.

It is one thing to determine that there is a very compelling likelihood that a former marriage was actually invalid (but that rare circumstances exist that prevent the annulment process from taking place) but it is an entirely different thing to make a judgement that Christ’s law does not apply in a particular case.

The judgement is not that Christ’s law doesn’t apply. First of all the law isn’t being changed, the discipline is what is being addressed, i.e. Canon Law, not Christ’s law. Secondly it is not a determination that it does not apply. It is a determination that it is a grey area, or perhaps allowing a situation that is contrary to the law for a discerned greater good such as the aircraft in an emergency landing on a restricted military base.

Pope Francis has not said in Amoris Laetitia that people whose first marriages were valid can now receive Communion. He has not said this at all. That would also be a rejection what John Paul II stated in Familiaris Consortio. Pope Francis has not said this at all.

He suggests in footnote 351 that in some cases if “irregular” marriages, the sacraments may be allowed. He doesn’t make the distinction between the D & R and other irregular situations. Taken in context, it is hard to imagine how he did not intend it to apply to the D & R in exceptional cases.

The following article from the National Catholic Register is very good regarding this issue.

ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-a-hymn-to-indissolubility-and-fidelity/

So we have a deacon second-guessing cardinals. Will small wonders never cease.

Clearly the article expresses an opinion; and an opposite opinion is expressed at the highest levels of the hierarchy. Neither of us (you nor I) have an authoritative position on this, we have a variance of opinion.

We’ll just have to wait and see how all of this plays out in reality.

 

[Brendan]

Then Christ is the physician, and the priest the nurse administering the medicine. More like a nurse-practioner because (s)he has some leeway on what treatment protocol to follow and selecting the appropriate medication which AL says may include the sacraments…

Except the physician has provided a set of rules about under what conditions the medicine can safely and effectively be used. Can this ‘nurse practicitioner’ safely act in opposition to the instructions that the physician have provided about this medicine.

Did AL authorize that?

 

[irenaeus1]

Well, accompanyment would be quite helpful for those of impaired freedom due to factors outside of their control I would think. It’s not just about knowing as you above stated wrt personal mortal sin.
Secondly, no moral theologian of depth would interpret the “knowing” as simply meaning the priest told ya so and nows there’s no excuse.

Well, “knowing” is not the only qualification, and only a shoddy, lax moral theologian would interpret “knowing” as requiring a certain theological certainty before this criterion is met. What about willful consent?.. so in the example above where you cited “impaired freedom outside their control,” the same question I posed previously holds; namely, if this is the mitigating circumstance, then is it not better to leave them in their ignorance rather than aid them in their discernment which could then move them to being in a state of mortal sin?

 

[irenaeus1]

So we have a deacon second-guessing cardinals. Will small wonders never cease.

So what if one’s a deacon and another is a cardinal. If a particular cardinal is advocating same-sex unions and a street boy at the fish market second-guesses this cardinal, red hat or not, I’m siding with the boy on this one.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, “knowing” is not the only qualification, and only a shoddy, lax moral theologian would interpret “knowing” as requiring a certain theological certainty before this criterion is met. What about willful consent?.. so in the example above where you cited “impaired freedom outside their control,” the same question I posed previously holds; namely, if this is the mitigating circumstance, then is it not better to leave them in their ignorance rather than aid them in their discernment which could then move them to being in a state of mortal sin?

I am afraid I am unable to understand where you are coming from here.

 

[Tomdstone]

So the takeaway is that it may be possible for a Catholic to continue having sex with someone else’s spouse and still receive communion with a clear conscience.

A lot of Catholics insist that Catholic teaching has never changed.

 

[Brendan_64]

The judgement is not that Christ’s law doesn’t apply. First of all the law isn’t being changed, the discipline is what is being addressed, i.e. Canon Law, not Christ’s law.

Can you point me to the amendment of Canon Law to reflect what you have just stated? Are you arguing that individual priests are now effectively able to over-rule Canon Law and change if they deem circumstances to be appropriate? That would make Canon Law subject to the wishes of individual priests. Are priest now no longer subject to Canon Law, but that Canon Law is effectively subject to them? And if they can over-rule Canon Law regarding this issue, then if follows that they can do it to any Canon.

You seem to be elevating individual priests to a whole new level of authority. Who has granted priests such authority?

 

[OraLabora]

Can you point me to the amendment of Canon Law to reflect what you have just stated? Are you arguing that individual priests are now effectively able to over-rule Canon Law and change if they deem circumstances to be appropriate? That would make Canon Law subject to the wishes of individual priests. Are priest now no longer subject to Canon Law, but that Canon Law is effectively subject to them? And if they can over-rule Canon Law regarding this issue, then if follows that they can do it to any Canon.

You seem to be elevating individual priests to a whole new level of authority. Who has granted priests such authority?

Can you show me in Canon law where it explicitly says the D & R cannot receive the sacraments? The only thing I could find is that it’s an impediment to a second union, and that one is not to receive the Eucharist if one is conscious of grave sin without first going to sacramental confession, except in case of emergency. But it doesn’t specifically single out the D & R.

 

[St_Francis]

Not impossible, just not casually or accidentally possible. My reasons for believing this in the case of remarriage is, well reasonable, in that I can state my reasons. Christianity outside of the Catholic Church does not believe this “state of sin” idea. Sin is an action, committed many times, all the time, once, twice, etc. Remarriage, when other denominations see it as a sin, at most is an instance of sin, not an entering into a state of sin. However, most do not see remarriage as sinful in and of itself, especially if the other spouse was unfaithful. That is seen as a legitimate reason to divorce and then remarry.

This is just Christianity, without even factoring in the cultural pressures. So if a person is involved with other denomination, them or the spouse, it is likely that they might be counseled, with good intent of forming their conscience, wrongly. This is to say nothing of the converts who never had any exposure to Catholicism’s unique understanding of this issue.

So yes, I consider it not only possible, but in some cases likely, that a second marriage was entered into without culpability for mortal sin, or in some cases, any sin.

The problem is not the entering into the (legally) second marriage that bars one from receiving; it is the *ongoing *sexual relationship. Each time they engage in sexual activity, they are committing a sin (objectively speaking).

 

[TMC]

The problem is not the entering into the (legally) second marriage that bars one from receiving; it is the *ongoing *sexual relationship. Each time they engage in sexual activity, they are committing a sin (objectively speaking).

I think this is indicative of the real issue here. When many Catholics look at these families, all they are worried about is that someone is “getting away with” having sex with a second partner. I think the Pope looks at these families and sees individuals in need, and families in crisis. The focus on sexual purity detracts from the ability to address the needs of the family. The Pope is trying to get past that singular focus. Families are not only (or even principally) about sexual purity rules.

 

[asd72]

Can you show me in Canon law where it explicitly says the D & R cannot receive the sacraments? The only thing I could find is that it’s an impediment to a second union, and that one is not to receive the Eucharist if one is conscious of grave sin without first going to sacramental confession, except in case of emergency. But it doesn’t specifically single out the D & R.

It explains it clearly in this document.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

 

[OraLabora]

It explains it clearly in this document.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

Yes and as I said the Code of Canon Law doesn’t explicitly apply to the divorced & remarried; this article doesn’t show how the Code explicitly states it, it says how Church discipline interpreted the situation fo the D &R with respect to the doctrine. The doctrine is that those in persistent, obstinate grave sin are not to receive communion.

That D & R “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is a matter of interpretation and thus discipline. “Obstinately” suggests the third part of mortal sin “full consent of the will”. The Pope, in AL, is suggesting that this “full consent” is not always present due to mitigating factors and that thus in some cases, the D & R are not being “obstinate” but instead succumbing to their weaknesses.

What the Holy Father is doing in AL, is simply stating that the grave sin of “adultery” in the case of the D & R is like any other grave sin, it can have mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability because of lack of full consent of the will. Moreover he doesn’t even extend it to all D & R. He is explicit in noting that not all cases are alike and that someone who flaunts their grave sin most certainly is not properly disposed.

 

[JimG]

A lot of Catholics insist that Catholic teaching has never changed.

Yes. And many in the Catholic magisterium say that nothing has changed with this latest exhortation. Even Cardina Kasper says that “nothing has changed” with regard to doctrine or Canon Law. Then he goes on to say “everything has changed.” The question is who is correct.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes. And many in the Catholic magisterium say that nothing has changed with this latest exhortation. Even Cardina Kasper says that “nothing has changed” with regard to doctrine or Canon Law. Then he goes on to say “everything has changed.” The question is who is correct.

Both are correct. Nothing has changed in Canon Law nor in doctrine.

Everything that has changed, has been changed with respect to discipline.

 

[JimG]

Both are correct. Nothing has changed in Canon Law nor in doctrine.

Everything that has changed, has been changed with respect to discipline.

And it would appear that disciplinary change has the effect of changing doctrine. It’s just never adverted to. If we keep saying doctrine has not changed, but do things opposed to doctrine, then doctrine has changed.

 

[dans0622]

Both are correct. Nothing has changed in Canon Law nor in doctrine.

Everything that has changed, has been changed with respect to discipline.

Could you tell me which discipline has been changed. What was the discipline, where was it stated, and what is it now? Just one will do.

Dan

 

[pnewton]

The problem is not the entering into the (legally) second marriage that bars one from receiving; it is the *ongoing *sexual relationship. Each time they engage in sexual activity, they are committing a sin (objectively speaking).

By “objective”, do you mean before the eyes of the Church, or before the eyes of God. In other words, the sin is based on the first marriage being valid, or by lack of annulment making the first marriage valid?