- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
Where did I, or the Holy Father suggest that?
O
OraLabora
Guest
Application of doctrine, to be brief and for the purpose of discussion.
P
pianistclare
Guest
I’m amazed that people here don’t realize that priests have been making these “calls” for years. 
I asked if people go to communion after remarriage outside of the Church years ago, and was told “it happens all the time”. I’ve never once seen a priest tell anyone to stop receiving. Well, I take that back…only once. Because the woman refused to ask her fiance to attempt an annulment. She herself had one granted, but said she’d never put her fiance through that. So they got married at a Baptist church, and she’s now taking communion at a parish where no one knows her. Nothing changed.
I think Pope Francis wants to get rid of this attitude of “they’re going to do it anyway…” by suggesting that Pastors be more pastoral and stop shrugging it off or writing people off as lost causes.
What is that so horrible? Don’t we WANT people to get their marriages annulled?
Don’t we want people to care about the Eucharist?
Why does any Catholic have a “too bad so sad” attitude?
This whole conversation really slams the door on so many people. Almost gleefully so. Why should people try? Seems like Catholics in the US think everyone should just shut up and sit down.
“Year of Mercy”.
Right. Seems U.S. Catholics wish it were not.
I don’t for a minute believe the Pope is saying anything that;s changing doctrine.
Everyone wants to go back to the way things were decades ago.
remember this: if that happened, none of us would be allowed to even have or voice an opinion. We’d all be told to find another parish. I don’t remember anyone in my parents’ day have the temerity to tell a priest or a Bishop that he is wrong. And if they did, they’d only do it once.
I asked if people go to communion after remarriage outside of the Church years ago, and was told “it happens all the time”. I’ve never once seen a priest tell anyone to stop receiving. Well, I take that back…only once. Because the woman refused to ask her fiance to attempt an annulment. She herself had one granted, but said she’d never put her fiance through that. So they got married at a Baptist church, and she’s now taking communion at a parish where no one knows her. Nothing changed.
I think Pope Francis wants to get rid of this attitude of “they’re going to do it anyway…” by suggesting that Pastors be more pastoral and stop shrugging it off or writing people off as lost causes.
What is that so horrible? Don’t we WANT people to get their marriages annulled?
Don’t we want people to care about the Eucharist?
Why does any Catholic have a “too bad so sad” attitude?
This whole conversation really slams the door on so many people. Almost gleefully so. Why should people try? Seems like Catholics in the US think everyone should just shut up and sit down.
“Year of Mercy”.
Right. Seems U.S. Catholics wish it were not.
I don’t for a minute believe the Pope is saying anything that;s changing doctrine.
Everyone wants to go back to the way things were decades ago.
remember this: if that happened, none of us would be allowed to even have or voice an opinion. We’d all be told to find another parish. I don’t remember anyone in my parents’ day have the temerity to tell a priest or a Bishop that he is wrong. And if they did, they’d only do it once.
D
dans0622
Guest
Ok. Based on what you said back in post 609, I am under the impression that you think something has changed in regard to discipline. If that’s the case, could you give an example of at least one change in discipline as a result of “AL.”
What was the discipline before this exhortation and what is it now?
Dan
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t think they can. But I am willing to leave these decisions up to their discretion, which appears to be part of what the Pope is saying.
B
Brendan
Guest
That statement is true for anyone who has divorced and remarried without having the first marriage annulled.
So, yes, that is something that a pastor can objectively determine.
And I would disagree that discretion is what the Pope was saying. I got exactly the opposite answer from a Papal Nuncio. I specifically asked if the Familaris Consortio was still the teaching of the Church in such matters, and was told that it was.
Pope Francis himself said as much during his visit to Mexico
He reiterated that again in AL
The priest, in his discernment, has an obligation to help them understand what their situation is, as the Church sees it. And that view has not changed.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The notion that the same 2 additional conditions needed to make grave matter (in this case adultery or fornication) mortal sin apply to those in irregular (not just D & R) marriages. It seems to me it takes away from all this silly notion about “states” of mortal sin and brings sin back to what it really is: a personal act contrary to God’s will, that may be grave, and if grave, may or may not be mortally culpable depending on circumstances.
Just like any other sin really. No different from what the CCC says about masturbation, and force of habit, affective immaturity, etc.
The notion that some people are in sinful state is somewhat laughable because the reality is we all are sinners, so all are living in a way contrary to the will of God to some extent or another.
Another change in discipline is the notion that not all objectively adulterous irregular marriages are equal in gravity. The CCC itself notes, for instance, that violence against parents is objectively worse than violence against a stranger (CCC 1858). To treat the adultery of a man recently divorced so he can run off and marry his secretary equivalent to that of a woman who has been remarried for years after escaping a violent husband who molested her children is so blatantly unjust, it just makes the Catholic Church fit all the media stereotypes about an intransigent, ossified and outdated institution.
This is, I think, what Pope Francis is trying to address in AL and yes, AL does make the distinction between the recently divorced and remarried vs long-term stable second unions entered into by persons who were not morally culpable for the civil divorce of the fist union. It is at least in my view a change in discipline, of application of doctrine. In fact it is simply rendering uniform the (subjective I will admit) criteria for culpability of all sin by not creating some special categories that put people between a rock and a hard place.
I can appreciate that Canon lawyers are professionally required to defend the law and try people against it, and therefore probably like things neat and tidy and explicit. But what we’re talking about here is an issue that really is for the confessional, not a court. In the confessional, priests are confronted daily with life’s messes, and broken people trying to pick up the pieces and put them back together as best they can. I’ve been through that process myself and all I can say is that I’m glad that the confessional was manned by a merciful and kind priest.
Our faith journeys are long, slow, conversions. At least mine is and I know more than one monk who has told me that they are not monks because they have it all figured out, they are monks because without the stability and confines of the cloister they’d never be able to overcome themselves and effect that conversion. We shouldn’t be turning people away from the Church because they don’t meet Christ’s standard, we should invite them in with open arms and help them achieve that standard just as the abbot does when a new postulant first sets foot in the cloister.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Separation from a valid marriage is an impediment to a second union.
O
OraLabora
Guest
That’s what I said
I
irenaeus1
Guest
That only confuses the issue. Certainly, you recognize the difference between persistence in manifest grave sin, and someone who lives a spirit of repentance; yes, we are all sinners, but there’s a difference between repentant and unrepentant. The distinction is all over the Scripture, both OT and NT.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
Yes, I am confused… you say that is what you said then say that it is not explicit???That’s what I said
S
St_Francis
Guest
Objective is when one considers the criteria in a general way, so I could say that breaking into a home is a criminal act.
Subjective is when considering the particulars of a specific situation, like when Joe broke into a house because it was on fire and he was helping put the fire out.
Objectively, having sex with someone to whom one is not married is a mortal sin; however, if one was unaware that s/he was not married to the other, then s/he would not have fallen into the state of mortal sin.
S
St_Francis
Guest
It would be illogical to refuse the Eucharist to someone on the basis that they appear to publically contradict the indissolubility of marriage considering that D&R who live as brother and sister may receive the sacraments.
O
otjm
Guest
Given that, how do you respond to the following?
A prepares a presentation to the Tribunal, and on the face of it it appears that the first marriage was not valid; however, do to requests from the Tribunal for more information, which A is not able to produce, the case expires.
A approaches the parish priest to start the process of presenting the marriage to the Tribunal, but the priest refuses to present it, on the basis that according to the priest, the Tribunal is abusive (in a recent thread, a poster stated that their parish priest refused to present cases, allegedly because “all cases were granted”).
A believes they have a case, and that is confirmed by the pastor, but the diocese does not have a Tribunal (this is the case in some countries, to some extent).
A presents a case, which on the face of it appears that the first marriage was not valid; but the Tribunal is so back logged that the case gets lost.
A presents a case which appears on the face of it that the first marriage is not valid, but the Tribunal consists of 3 members, two of whom believe that the appropriate section of Canon law is either invalid, or demand an impossible level of proof (such that they will never grant a decree of nullity under that provision).
R
roseofshannon
Guest
How do you think a saint would respond in those scenarios?
R
roseofshannon
Guest
It is medicine for the weak. That is why the weak (including myself) must avail ourselves to frequent confession so that we may be in a state of grace enabling us to receive Holy Communion. We don’t have to be “perfect” or “pure” as some have stated. Having venial sin is allowed but having mortal sin is not.
The real point we need to focus on is whether or not a firm amendment to repent is present. This can mean no sex for those with kids still at home or separation/civil divorce from spouse #2 for those who don’t have kids. Otherwise you are just going right back to an adulterous relationship with no plan to make a change. This is what separates D/R from other sins. Plus the fact that it is a scandal which encourages others to follow suit when things get hard in their marriages.
It’s hard to be sure, but one has to decide what is most important and what they are willing to sacrifice for Jesus.
As CCC states: 136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
Which Pope Francis comes nowhere near suggesting. We’re talking about discerning difficult cases, which he makes clear, not establishing a general rule, which he also makes clear:
Yes, this is true. There are many difficult cases which must be handled with the greatest of compassion, accompaniment, and love while still standing firm in the truth. No one is to be cast out of Mass or the community if they are trying to repent and are still in the stage of working things out! They are still a baptized member of the Church and should be made to feel welcome. Indeed I would have nothing but the highest respect for someone who is making such amazing sacrifices and setting an example of such high esteem for the Eucharist and such humility in accepting their penance and offering their suffering up for souls.
Seeing as how polls indicate that the vast majority of Catholics use artificial birth control or commit other grave sins without a care there really should be a great many in the pews during Communion, or going up to receive a blessing so they really shouldn’t feel alone. I have done this when I have not been in a state of grace and couldn’t get to confession before Mass.
It is a great honor to make sacrifices for Jesus and waiting humbly in obedience to receive him only shows our love for Him all the more and is a great witness to others of the true presence and inconceivable value of the Holy Eucharist.
He is the Pearl of Great Price after all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseofshannon View Post
As I stated earlier, we should be willing to wait for marriage and Holy Communion as Jacob waited for Rachel—14 years! The best things in life are worth waiting for.
We’re talking about sacramental grace, not an event or a partner.
We are talking about the Communion of our body and soul with the body and soul of Christ. Every Mass is a wedding feast and every Communion is an act of making love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseofshannon View Post
Spiritual communion and blessings are always available as well as adoration.
Except that:
Quote:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(John 6:53)
Baptism opens the doors to heaven and Jesus made allowance for the good thief even though he was neither baptized and had never received Communion.
Jesus can make allowances if He sees fit. He is bigger than the rules. The Church cannot and is bound by the rules Jesus put forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseofshannon View Post
WHY AMORIS LAETITIA WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED ME
by Luma Simms
Which is an individual case concerning an issue for which the Holy Father exhorts his clergy to examine cases individually, thus one specific case cannot be made a general rule, no matter which side it comes down on, as the quote from AL illustrates above.
The reason I posted her story is because of posts declaring that if we don’t allow people to go to Holy Communion we are shutting the doors on them and judging them and we will scare them away. Her case is just one of many that proves the opposite is quite true when the heart is properly disposed.
Again, people (not singling out anyone specific here) have either not read AL thoroughly with an open mind, or have their own personal axes to grind and are projecting their own fears onto the document.
Perhaps your assumptions about peoples motives and ignorance are correct, but maybe some people (myself included) are just interested in discussing the ramifications of the document because they have concerns they wish to voice in order to more fully understand and discern the truth.
Peace!
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Rebellious against the Holy Father? That is one neck of a leap, from an interpretation of AL that does not see it as a document that does not view it as allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried, to rebellion against the Holy Father. And even if someone rejects AL outright (which not many ‘conservatives’ seem to do) then they can do so since this document is non-binding. And how do you know what the Holy Father meant by writing this document? How can you be certain that a liberal interpretation of this document is what the Holy Father intended?
Are you not now playing the, “Anyone who criticises a 'liberal interpretation of AL is going against the Holy Father” card? That is a very divisive road to go down as it effectively claims the Holy Father as belonging to a certain ‘camp’. It also presumes to know the mind of Pope Francis.
- Status