Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[St_Francis]

If the Church changed it, there was a reason: because it led to confusion.

For hundreds of years, it did not lead to confusion. Now all of a sudden it does? What, are we more stupid than previous generations?

 

[roseofshannon]

I said from the first that what Pope Francis is proposing is difficult. It calls for a lot from the priests. Platitudes and forumulas are the easy route. Mercy is almost always the hardest road.

But mercy requires repentance:
CCC136 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

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace.

If you make no change and go home to your adulterous relationship you haven’t repented.

 

[OraLabora]

Likewise, if the conditions laid out in Familaris Consortio 84 had been revoked, that too would be clearly stated.

Barring such a revocation , that remains the teaching of the Church, and thus what pastors are called to teach.

It hasn’t been revoked. It’s still the normal standard. What AL does is make allowances in a few difficult cases to be the “exception to the rule”. That doesn’t invalidate the rule, rather the opposite it validates it. It means the rule is fundamentally just in its application. The speed limit doesn’t suddenly become no longer valid because you sped your wife who has entered labour to the hospital and a judge cancelled your ticket for just cause.

Perhaps it’s my French Canadian background but I see it as bizarre that people would think that there is absolutely no unforeseen circumstance in which a rule might need to relaxed a little or even abrogated in a specific instance. AL is much more in line with the way I’m used to thinking because it the Holy Father doesn’t think a rule should be so set in cement that it should override common sense in rare cases. It is certainly the way that my local Church conducts itself.

Following the rules can be intensely liberating, believe me I know it. But it shouldn’t be a straightjacket that denies mercy for the sake of the rule itself, if someone is having genuine difficulty in following it for legitimate reasons. That is making the rule an idol in its own right, not a tool for Christ’s Church. Christ Himself broke “rules” when He thought charity overrode them. The Law is to serve Man, not the other way around.

 

[OraLabora]

For hundreds of years, it did not lead to confusion. Now all of a sudden it does? What, are we more stupid than previous generations?

This is going off topic. I will stick to what the Church currently teaches. Enough said before we get more sidetracked than we already are.

 

[OraLabora]

But mercy requires repentance:
CCC136 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

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace.

If you make no change and go home to your adulterous relationship you haven’t repented.

You’re making an assumption that they are not repentant. An alcoholic who falls of the wagon is repentant, but his addiction makes it difficult for him to avoid falling again.

Similarly an intimate relationship in a long-lasting second union may not be easy to extricate one’s self from unilaterally, especially if the other party is not Catholic, without affecting the stability of the union which is particularly important if children are involved. This is addressed in AL. See paragraph 298 and footnote 329.

The Holy Father actually speaks about the notion of repentance but difficulty in overcoming the sin, in AL. Fairly extensively in fact, referring to Aquinas. See paragraph 301.

It boils down to this: there is no one-size-fits all solution. Nor is a genuine repentance conditional on a perfect result or excluded by a subsequent fall . This again is addressed in AL, this time referring to Saint John Paul II in footnote 364:

Perhaps out of a certain scrupulosity, concealed beneath a zeal for fidelity to the truth, some priests demand of penitents a purpose of amendment so lacking in nuance that it causes mercy to be obscured by the pursuit of a supposedly pure justice. For this reason, it is helpful to recall the teaching of Saint John Paul II, who stated that the possibility of a new fall “should not prejudice the authenticity of the resolution” (Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum on the occasion of the Course on the Internal Forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary [22 March 1996], 5: Insegnamenti XIX/1 [1996], 589).

 

[pnewton]

But mercy requires repentance:

This is kind of obvious, but yes. Even if there is venial sin, and not mortal sin in these situations, it still requires repentance. But isn’t that the same with all of us?

But remember, not all case of (apparent) remarriage are adultery, specifically, the one I was discussing.

 

[asd72]

Come on, lighten up a little. I’m not disputing the seriousness of sin, but focusing on its personal nature. None of us, not a single one of us, is not in a “state of sin”. We all have our obstinate sins. I feel singularly unqualified, as a result, to point fingers and single out people who are in a much more difficult situation than I am. There but for the grace of God go I. I have enough trouble managing my own, and am grateful enough for the mercy I do receive that I wish the same for others.

Please stop this amateurish debating tactic of trying to put words in my mouth, and stick to the discussion. I have nowhere come close to even suggesting that. I am saying it is possible for the D & R in difficult cases to have mitigating factors that preclude them for being mortally culpable of the specific grave matter that they commit. I am saying that it is possible, therefore, for them to be in a state of grace in spite of their sin.

We are not debating whether sin exists or not, whether some sins (including adultery) are serious or not. We all agree on those, so please stop playing this silly game. We are arguing about the culpability of a certain sin. What I do see are people trying to have objective criteria on what is a subjective matter.

The gravity of a matter is objective. The degree of culpability is subjective. Again: we shouldn’t be applying the same criteria to a recently divorced person who abandoned their spouse to run off with another, and to a long-ago abandoned spouse who was abused, had their children molested, and entered a second union to find stability and some measure of companionship in life for his or her family. That makes no sense whatsoever. You are treating both as equally culpable. The Holy Father doesn’t, fortunately, and AL makes that clear.

The subjective part of mortal sin is if it is committed with full knowledge of the sinner, and if it is committed with **deliberate consent **of the sinner.

A good intention (stability and companionship) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as adultery, good or just. The end does not justify the means. The sin is still mortal if the person commits adultery, despite having being left unjustly, if the person commits it with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

 

[JimG]

So in other words he is saying that my interpretation of AL is more or less correct in that AL does change things and does allow the Eucharist for the D & R in some circumstances, but that he just disagrees with it. Well it does at least strike me as a more honest reading of AL than I’ve been seeing here.

One statement stands out, for me at least, from his article:

Quote:
But finding it “difficult to act differently” is not alone a sufficient reason not to invite remarried divorcees to extricate themselves from objective adultery. It is safe to say that most all of those who are in this situation will find it difficult to act differently. But Jesus gives us sacramental grace precisely so that we can do with his help what we find very difficult to do on our own…

Except that in the case of the D & R they have to extricate themselves first from objective adultery before they can get the help of sacramental grace to extricate themselves from the situation. It’s a catch-22.

Sacramental grace (as distinct from sanctifying grace) is a particular type of actual grace particular to each sacrament, in order to give the help needed to live in cooperation with that sacrament. I don’t think he was referring here to the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, but to the sacramental grace of matrimony—that actual grace given and available to one entering the married state. (And if the first marriage is valid, he would be speaking of the sacramental graces afforded by that first and valid marriage.)

But actual graces are given apart from the sacraments as well—through prayer, adoration, participation in the Mass even without receiving communion, practicing corporal and spiritual works of mercy. He wasn’t speaking of the sacramental graces of the Eucharist, so it’s not a Catch-22.

One also has to affirm and take seriously St. Paul’s warning about the effects of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. (1 Cor 11:27) It would be of no benefit for a priest or anyone else to encourage the reception of the Eucharist if it puts a person in spiritual danger rather than being a benefit. Quoting Dr. Brugger in the linked article: “But even if you are truly in good faith, I cannot judge that you may rightly receive the Holy Eucharist, because I cannot know that, and my telling you that might well encourage you to rationalize ongoing mortal sin and result in your eternal damnation.” And that would be no act of mercy.

 

[OraLabora]

The subjective part of mortal sin is if it is committed with full knowledge of the sinner, and if it is committed with **deliberate consent **of the sinner.

A good intention (stability and companionship) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as adultery, good or just. The end does not justify the means. The sin is still mortal if the person commits adultery, despite having being left unjustly, if the person commits it with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

This isn’t what is being suggested. My example is a case of someone wanting to repent, but unable to because the other party in the couple is uncooperative and not Catholic. This places the person between a rock and a hard place. Refuse sex, and perhaps have the relationship unravel which would be particularly bad if children are involved, or be barred from confession and the Eucharist. I’m not talking about someone just deciding to continue as normal. Read AL. It’s clearly explained.

Again we’re talking fairly exceptional cases. Not the general rule.

 

[OraLabora]

One also has to affirm and take seriously St. Paul’s warning about the effects of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. (1 Cor 11:27) It would be of no benefit for a priest or anyone else to encourage the reception of the Eucharist if it puts a person in spiritual danger rather than being a benefit. Quoting Dr. Brugger in the linked article: “But even if you are truly in good faith, I cannot judge that you may rightly receive the Holy Eucharist, because I cannot know that, and my telling you that might well encourage you to rationalize ongoing mortal sin and result in your eternal damnation.” And that would be no act of mercy.

I don’t think that a priest who is trying his sincere best to discern these cases, and maybe occasionally gets it wrong can be condemned of advising the couple to receive unworthily.

Dr. Brugger is taking far too scrupulous an approach to this. Using his logic a priest couldn’t even absolve anyone of sins for fear that the penitent might have deliberately withheld a mortal sin.

It’s rather like saying I won’t drive anywhere because there’s a statistical probability I might cause an accident. It’s a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument and creates a form of idol worship in that we are no longer worshipping Christ but worshipping basically, our own fears. Such is the spark that lights the flame of scrupulosity.

 

[Brendan]

This isn’t what is being suggested. My example is a case of someone wanting to repent, but unable to because the other party in the couple is uncooperative and not Catholic. .

So you say that person is being raped? Or being held in economic prostitution.

I am sure that we can all agree that those are sighs of very unhealthy relationships, and the Church should be encouraging them to separate

Even if there are children involved,.one person being forced to have sexual relations against their will is a moral wrong.

 

[Brendan]

It hasn’t been revoked. It’s still the normal standard. What AL does is make allowances in a few difficult cases to be the “exception to the rule”.

I have read through AL and nowhere does it make such a claim

 

[irenaeus1]

None of us, not a single one of us, is not in a “state of sin”. We all have our obstinate sins.

While I thereby do not consider myself acquitted (as St. Paul says), I can say with a clear conscience that I am not in a “state of sin.” Also, the Church teaches that we are not simultaneously sinners and righteous; i.e., we cannot simultaneously be in the state of grace and the state of sin.

Please stop this amateurish debating tactic of trying to put words in my mouth, and stick to the discussion. I have nowhere come close to even suggesting that. I am saying it is possible for the D & R in difficult cases to have mitigating factors that preclude them for being mortally culpable of the specific grave matter that they commit. I am saying that it is possible, therefore, for them to be in a state of grace in spite of their sin.

This topic is germane to the discussion, and I’d appreciate you not making personal insults regarding whether you think my tactics are amateurish. You are the one constantly placing the word ‘state’ in quotes regarding the state of sin - calling it silly and laughable. So it is completely within reason for me to subsequently ask whether you have the same objection to ‘state’ of grace.

 

[OraLabora]

So you say that person is being raped? Or being held in economic prostitution.

I am sure that we can all agree that those are sighs of very unhealthy relationships, and the Church should be encouraging them to separate

Even if there are children involved,.one person being forced to have sexual relations against their will is a moral wrong.

No, and it’s disingenuous again to make that claim. Most cases aren’t as black-and-white as you seem to think. This wouldn’t have been a topic of the Synod if pastors in the field didn’t have serious concerns.

 

[irenaeus1]

I will stick to what the Church currently teaches.

So Church teaching has changed???

 

[JimG]

However, it’s unfair to characterize those who are trying to uphold the standards set by Jesus and the Church for millenium as mean spirited. Many of us are also in pain and in need of sympathy.

Divorce has wrecked havoc upon my own family tree. Our ancestors are all Catholic and my family of origin and the one I created are devout Catholic. The hope and purpose of my life is to perpetuate our Catholic inheritance down to our grandchildren and descendants.

I wrote an earlier post in this thread describing the pastoral guidance given to my own father: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13824171#post13824171

Both my siblings are now divorced as well, one of them for a second time.

Now my husband and I are divorced after 25 years and 5 kids. I was advised by several priests that I needed to separate for over 15 years and finally did. I never had any intention of divorcing or remarrying, only of preserving my health and safety so I sought a legal separation.

So many people would call my husband my “ex” and I would explain that we are still married but separated. They asked when I’ll get a divorce and I explained that because we are Catholic we won’t because our vows stated “until death do us part”. People would have an “aha” moment when I explained this and would say, “You know, you’re right that is how it’s supposed to be. I’ve just never known anyone who has actually lived that.”

I could at least take solace in the fact that even though we were a bad example of married life to our children and others, we could still be good examples of the truth of the indissolubility of marriage. Our kids would know that you only marry once and when you have problems you work them out or you may be alone the rest of your life.

I blame the increased availability of annulments as the reason for our marriage break up. Why? Because we spent $100,000 on marriage counselling over the years and my husband would be very agreeable during the sessions, but then he wouldn’t comply with what was agreed to when we would get home. So back to counselling we would go.

He didn’t want me to leave but he also didn’t want to make the necessary changes to make things work. During arguments with him it became clear by the comments he would make that he was weighing out the two choices he would face: either comply with the counselling or if she leaves me get an annulment and he warned me of his plan.

The annulment was his door of escape.

So now I’ve been served with divorce and he is applying for an annulment on the basis that he was too immature to enter into the marriage.

So will he be mature enough now to enter his second marriage? That marriage will be a sacrament and ours wasn’t? Was ours a “practice marriage”? And why didn’t he chose to grow in maturity over the course of 25 years and all that counselling?

I’m afraid AL and it’s after effects will not be helpful to my family maintaining it’s Catholic identity or helping my Dad or my husband to grow in holiness. Two of my kids have already left the faith. I feel rather abandoned by the Church.

An earlier posting mentioned that we are dealing with individual cases here, not the whole church. But as the Catechism states:

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

So no, I am no better than anyone else including my Dad or husband. I just want our family to stay Catholic and most of all for every member to be together in Heaven!

I feel like I’m trying to hold my finger in a hole in the dike and it’s crumbling nevertheless. Instead of helping me to uphold the dam the recent actions of so many in the Church are only punching more holes in the wall.

It sounds as though the only person in your situation committed to the indissolubility of marriage is you. I’m just guessing but it is likely that the tribunal will find in favor of nullity, simply on the basis of your husband’s statement that he lacked the maturity to enter into marriage.

I know of several couples who had been in long lasting marriages, and for whom nullity was found, even while one party opposed the annulment and said that it was groundless.

My wife’s late aunt was divorced and remarried, and remained in the Church and an active member of her parish. She just did not receive communion. She devoted less discussion to the matter than this forum or A.L. Her annulment request was denied. She didn’t worry about it. The decision might well have been wrong. It might have been reversed on appeal. She didn’t worry about any of that. She went on with her life, attended Mass weekly and continued in her second marriage. When her husband became impotent because of age and illness, she resumed confession and communion. Was she living in adultery all that time? Probably not, in my view, but she accepted the Church’s decision and carried on.

 

[TMC]

Your post:

That is not an insult, it is a description of some Catholics. If it does not apply to you, why does it concern you? It certainly does apply to many Catholics, doesn’t it?

 

[JosieN]

It sounds as though the only person in your situation committed to the indissolubility of marriage is you. I’m just guessing but it is likely that the tribunal will find in favor of nullity, simply on the basis of your husband’s statement that he lacked the maturity to enter into marriage.

I know of several couples who had been in long lasting marriages, and for whom nullity was found, even while one party opposed the annulment and said that it was groundless.

My wife’s late aunt was divorced and remarried, and remained in the Church and an active member of her parish. She just did not receive communion. She devoted less discussion to the matter than this forum or A.L. Her annulment request was denied. She didn’t worry about it. The decision might well have been wrong. It might have been reversed on appeal. She didn’t worry about any of that. She went on with her life, attended Mass weekly and continued in her second marriage. When her husband became impotent because of age and illness, she resumed confession and communion. Was she living in adultery all that time? Probably not, in my view, but she accepted the Church’s decision and carried on.

Thank you for that story. I believe God will reward her for her patience, obedience and maturity.

 

[St_Francis]

Where the illogicality?

There are clearly two issues at play. One is the public aspect which you brought up. The other is the ongoing sexual relationship, which also counts, otherwise living as brother and sister would not be a solution.

It’s not intrinsically evil.

???

And no, the latter may not receive publicly which is the arena in question.

Yoy are the one who brought up the issue of public-ness. What the thread has been about is the issue of D&R continuing a sexual relationship and receiving Communion.

 

[otjm]

I do not know the meaning or intention of a footnote–which, istm, a footnote in an exhortation cannot possibly be a major statement on doctrine or discipline–I am merely defending the current Church teaching/regulation.

The problem I have with the IFS is that if the teachings of the Church are *real, *then the IFS poses a real danger to the souls of those involved.

For example, I knew a woman who nearly died in the operating table because she did not mention some herbal remedies she had been taking. It did not occur to her that they were medically important; they were just herbs, after all. She did not intend to mislead or deceive: she made an innocent mistake.

The fact that she made an innocent mistake did not protect her from the *real *medication conflict that existed.

In the same way, while the Eucharist is indeed medicine, it can, like most meds, be poison under certain circumstances: partaking unworthily can result in an eternity in Hell.

Those who deceive priests to get what they want to hear are quite obviously in danger. But if a priest advises evilly, pridefully, out of a desire for human respect *then he takes upon himself the consequences of the decision. *

What people seem sometimes to miss in these discussions is the utter reality of all this which we are supposed to believe in as Catholics.

Your analogy falls down with what is accepted moral theology, as to what constitutes guilt of a mortal sin. Innocent mistakes might result in death on the operating table, but the adjective “innocent” is well answered in the CCC and elsewhere.

It goes without saying that lying about moral matters is wrong, but nothing in the Pope’s Exhortation to his brother priests indicates any thought whatsoever of that being anything but wrong. So it would seem the comment does not apply.

Nor is there anything in the Exhortation indicating that priests should advise “evilly, pridefully, out of desire for human respect”. There may be some priests out there who do; but they were doing that before the Exhortation, and doing it after is not a fault of the document.

A thorough reading of the Exhortation, I would submit, has extremely little to say about admitting divorced and remarried Catholics who lack a decree of nullity concerning their prior marriage, to Communion. It certainly indicates that some issues - such as being a godparent - may no longer be absolutely barred.

Nor does the Exhortation presume that tribunals are no longer needed, or that one does not need to engage in the process of seeking a decree of nullity. It clearly does indicate that the Church has a lot of work to do. And that is substantiated by information CARA found in doing research on divorced Catholics: 7% had received a decree of nullity; 8% had not (which includes those who may have spoken to a pastor and then done no more, all the way up to those who had a hearing by the tribunal and the tribunal could not provide a decree of nullity. If one does the math, that leaves 85% of divorced Catholics who have not sought a decree; and that is a lot of divorced Catholics, some of whom may have remarried outside the Church.

This final comment is not directed to you, but rather to this thread, and to other similar threads: I am astounded at the number of people who seem to presume bad faith on a significant number of priests.