Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[otjm]

You did not present this post to me but I’ll respond anyway. In all these cases, the person should ask for the help of a competent canon lawyer, who might even assist free of charge.

My question was meant to be open to anyone. Thank you for taking it up.

In a perfect world, I agree with you. Having spent more decades in it than I care to count, it is my observation that it is anything but perfect. It is my observation that many people realy have no clue what to do next, have way too little knowledge of the Church processes (if any at all) and often are egregiously mistaken as to what the Church holds and what it does, let alone what they can do.

Rather than address each of your answers, I would say that at least in some of the scenarios, it would take a person with more knowledge than many, if not most have, to follow through. I have observed way too much of human misery, and the inability to react properly to it. it not only takes knowledge, but also a goodly degree of emotional strength to not simply give up when there seems no way to deal with what one has been handed.

One last question: is this (the Exhortation) a suggestion to explore further the issue of Internal Forum?

 

[St_Francis]

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.

In a situation in which one person tells his or her or another’s side of the story, a person will just through human imperfection possibly make a small or large mistake, esp in the case of the person seeking Communion being the previously unmarried spouse of a divorced person. Thus, in explaining matters to a priest, with no evil intended, a person may slightly slant the description, may through ignorance leave something out, etc.

This is why there is a tribunal, to examine evidence, etc, as I have said earlier.

Moreover, again, what bars the D&R from receiving is the ongoing sexual relationship…etc, as I said earlier.

Nor is there anything in the Exhortation

I am not discussing the Exhortation, merely defending the current situation wrt the internal forum solution.

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.

Priests are human and so subject to flaws and faults. Moreover, I doubt there are many parish priests who are canon lawyers.

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.

Good! Let’s reach out to these people and help them. However, given the high number of Catholics who have left the Church for other reasons, I suspect that many D&R because they weren’t practicing the Faith already, and have little interest in returning due to other reasons.

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.

On my part, I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming human frailty.

 

[pnewton]

So Church teaching has changed???

No Church teaching has changed, or needs to. If you remember, whether it was doctrine that one who has been remarried cannot receive communion was considered a doctrine by some of the more vocal bishops at the last synod, but not by the majority. It is something that one cannot find stated as a doctrine authoritatively. Similar statements, and the syllogisms from them can be found.

I understand that those who believe this to be doctrine (as do some theologians) cannot see the same possibilities as the Catholics that do not. If we see this disagreement with those in authority, then it is to be expected to exist here. Time will tell what will actually be done.

 

[St_Francis]

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

I think you bring up an important point, which is that humble obedience is a great virtue. Those who are unable to regularize their marital situations and who humbly obey are doing something very good and faithful. If they use the sources of grace they have legitimate access to, why would we not think that God would reward them?

 

[otjm]

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.

And if the first marriage was not valid, there is no adultery.

 

[otjm]

Also, if things are left to each priest to decide, it won’t only cause priest shopping but would also cause a myriad of headaches for the priests:

“Why did he get the okay and I don’t?”

“You want me to have to make all these sacrifices and they don’t?”

“Do you know how much I donate to this parish?”

“You gave them permission because they donate so much money didn’t you?”

Yikes!

None of these are new; the priests have been hearing this since the Code changed.

 

[otjm]

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.

There are some people who are so liberal with the issues of knowledge and consent that one wonders; but many, if not most of them are not only not in the Reconciliation line, but they are also not in the pew on Sunday.

And then there are those who are so minimalist that the standard they apply to knowledge and consent that no one could pass the test if one were, of, say above a 65 IQ - in other words, they don’t truly accept that anyone could actually ever lack full knowledge and consent. Ever.

 

[otjm]

In a situation in which one person tells his or her or another’s side of the story, a person will just through human imperfection possibly make a small or large mistake, esp in the case of the person seeking Communion being the previously unmarried spouse of a divorced person. Thus, in explaining matters to a priest, with no evil intended, a person may slightly slant the description, may through ignorance leave something out, etc.

The same could be said for anything confessed in Reconciliation. And except some priest who is so new the oil has not been absorbed, most will have had sufficient experience that it would prompt them to ask mroe questions. I seriously doubt that any situation is going to be no more than, say a 15 or 30 minute chat. What appears to be envisioned is a long process.

This is why there is a tribunal, to examine evidence, etc, as I have said earlier.

There is nothing in the Exhortation that even implies that this is to replace the tribunal.

Moreover, again, what bars the D&R from receiving is the ongoing sexual relationship…etc, as I said earlier.

Until you have walked in the moccasins, you do not know the path. I would suggest you re-read the section in the CCC about the impact of habitual sin…

I am not discussing the Exhortation, merely defending the current situation wrt the internal forum solution.

As I noted earlier (I think in this thread) I dont know the status of the Internal Forum; assuming for the sake of argument that it is legitimate as a process, I seriously doubt that it is going to be s short and simple process.

Priests are human and so subject to flaws and faults. Moreover, I doubt there are many parish priests who are canon lawyers.

As Canon law covers a vast amount of ground, I would agree; however, the area of marital issues is relatively smaller; and many, if not most priests have training in it as well as practical experience. And priests are not required to prepare the case for a tribunal; they can pass it over to another priest or an advocate.

Good! Let’s reach out to these people and help them. However, given the high number of Catholics who have left the Church for other reasons, I suspect that many D&R because they weren’t practicing the Faith already, and have little interest in returning due to other reasons.

I am doing all I can by participating as a presenter/listener in Catholics Returning Home.

On my part, I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming human frailty.

Well, if Christ could trust the leadership of a nascent Church to someone with a track record like Peter (who happens to be one of my favorites), then I suspect that Christ also trusts the priests of today…

 

[JosieN]

He makes excellent points on this subject.

Bishop Schneider: God needs the ‘simple faithful’ to protect the faith in this time of crisis

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-god-needs-the-simple-faithful-to-protect-the-faith-in-this

Thank God for good Bishops.

 

[Brendan_64]

It isn’t just “my interpretation”. And you keep harping on the notion that AL is “all about allowing the D & R to receive communion”, as it if we think it’s a blanket licence when I know and have repeated here, ad nauseum, that I recognize that this is for the exceptional case. Moreover the rest of the document (which is not the subject of this thread) has much more to say than the situation of the D & R, and is well worth the read. It also happens that the D & R it is the subject of this thread so we aren’t discussing the other aspects of AL.

This is your interpretation, because you appear to be saying that it is a given that AL does indeed allow for certain circumstances where divorced and remarried people can receive Communion. This is your opinion because there are no statements in AL that specifically state this. Not even the controversial footnote 351 states this. It isn’t that there is no clear statement on blanket licence for divorced and remarried to receive Communion, there is no clear statement on any circumstances where they can.

I have read into this that what is being suggested may relate to those who appear to be in a second marriage, but are actually in a first marriage because the original union wasn’t valid. Father Longnecker makes this point with the examples he has given from his own experience:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/04/the-popes-exhortation-a-parish-priests-perspective.html

And Bishop Egan explains how AL is not allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/amoris-laetitia-does-not-allow-communion-for-remarried-says-bishop/#.VxpyhK44BUE.facebook

So please stop insisting that it is a given that the bottom line that you hold about AL clearly allowing Communion for the divorced and actually remarried at all. This is not at all clear from this document as there is no clear statement to that effect. That is your opinion and it would seem that Cardinal Burke, Bishop Egan, Father Longnecker and many of us ordinary lay-people disagree with your assertion.

 

[asd72]

I think you bring up an important point, which is that humble obedience is a great virtue. Those who are unable to regularize their marital situations and who humbly obey are doing something very good and faithful. If they use the sources of grace they have legitimate access to, why would we not think that God would reward them?

What of people who die while still committing adultery?

As far as church teaching goes they are in a perpetual state of mortal sin, and if they die in that state, may be headed for hell. That is why I don’t understand the seeming acceptance of staying in the marriage and not taking Holy communion as an acceptable compromise.

Isn’t the end point our eternal salvation, which is still in jeopardy even if we don’t commit sacrilege on top of it?

 

[Brendan_64]

I think that the liberal reading of AL is in many ways similar to the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ reading of the documents of Vatican II. It disregards what is specifically written and looks for hints at things that have not actually been written. This is then established as an bottom line and portrayed as the ‘obvious’ meaning of what hasn’t actually been stated.

Their argument then becomes not about what was actually written, but what they interpret as the unwritten meaning of what has been written which they clearly think they realise (as opposed to others who do not see this certain meaning). In my opinion, this points dangerously towards a form of gnosticism.

 

[pnewton]

He makes excellent points on this subject.

Bishop Schneider: God needs the ‘simple faithful’ to protect the faith in this time of crisis

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-god-needs-the-simple-faithful-to-protect-the-faith-in-this

Thank God for good Bishops.

Just to be clear, this occurred prior to the papal exhortation.

 

[pnewton]

I think that the liberal reading of AL is in many ways similar to the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ reading of the documents of Vatican II. It disregards what is specifically written and looks for hints at things that have not actually been written.

While this may become true for some people, there have been liberal quotes of the actual document. It seems to me that those like Cardinal Burke are giving a more liberal interpretation to what the Holy Father is suggesting, but that’s just my opinion. (I mean by “liberal” here a loose, less literal reading, not politically liberal)

 

[pnewton]

I have read into this that what is being suggested may relate to those who appear to be in a second marriage, but are actually in a first marriage because the original union wasn’t valid. Father Longnecker makes this point with the examples he has given from his own experience:

I think this will be the clearest use of the type of pastoral intervention Pope Francis foresees. Whether there is something more remains to be seen, your selection of theologians not withstanding. I know we all have our opinions on what the future will hold. I think it rather naive to think we know how this will play out. So which side is engage in the greater “gnosticism”?

 

[St_Francis]

The same could be said for anything confessed in Reconciliation. And except some priest who is so new the oil has not been absorbed, most will have had sufficient experience that it would prompt them to ask mroe questions. I seriously doubt that any situation is going to be no more than, say a 15 or 30 minute chat. What appears to be envisioned is a long process.

In the end, a priest is not entirely responsible for the action of absolution. For example, if a person *deliberately *withholds a mortal sin, the confession “doesn’t take,” nor do any subsequent confessions until the person rectifies the situation.

Second, the internal forum solution is very different from confession, as it takes place outside of confession (the D&R not being permitted to receive the sacraments), and requiring a determination by the priest regarding future action rather than absolution, which needs to be ratified, so to speak.

There is nothing in the Exhortation that even implies that this is to replace the tribunal.

Since the intended meaning and implication of the footnote in AL is unclear, I’m not talking about it anyway.

Until you have walked in the moccasins, you do not know the path. I would suggest you re-read the section in the CCC about the impact of habitual sin…

One still needs an intention to desist; it would be the sin of presumption to *rely *on this idea.

As I noted earlier (I think in this thread) I dont know the status of the Internal Forum; assuming for the sake of argument that it is legitimate as a process, I seriously doubt that it is going to be s short and simple process.

Well, no, as has been pointed out, Familiaris Consortis rules it out, and at least two clarifying letters from the Vatican specifically ruled it out as an option. The IFS is *not *permitted.

As Canon law covers a vast amount of ground, I would agree; however, the area of marital issues is relatively smaller; and many, if not most priests have training in it as well as practical experience. And priests are not required to prepare the case for a tribunal; they can pass it over to another priest or an advocate.

I am doing all I can by participating as a presenter/listener in Catholics Returning Home.

Well, if Christ could trust the leadership of a nascent Church to someone with a track record like Peter (who happens to be one of my favorites), then I suspect that Christ also trusts the priests of today…

ETA: link to document mentioned above

 

[Brendan]

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.

Is the person being forced to have sex without their consent, if so, that IS rape.

If they are consenting to sex, is that under economic duress (a form of prostitiution) that certainly does reduce culpability

If they are consenting to sex for either their own pleasure, or some sort of human intimacy outside of a valid marriage, that is a grave act.

And yes, I agree that all of the above are serious concerns. But not serious enough for consenting sex to be exempted from the requirements F.C 84.

In your example, you stated that this person is repentant, are desires to live by the Church’s teaching ( FC 84), but are prevented from doing so by their partner.

So how is the partner preventing them? By forcing sex upon them, when the Catholic partner sees it as sinful, by threating to leave them destitute if they do not have sex.

How is this hypothetical partner keeping the Catholic from being faithful to Church teaching, how are they keeping the Catholic from acting on their repentance?

 

[Brendan_64]

I think this will be the clearest use of the type of pastoral intervention Pope Francis foresees. Whether there is something more remains to be seen, your selection of theologians not withstanding. I know we all have our opinions on what the future will hold. I think it rather naive to think we know how this will play out. So which side is engage in the greater “gnosticism”?

We can all read something and draw our own opinions on the meaning of what we have written, but this is quite different from the de facto position that your opinion is actually the starting point upon which all other interpretations must be made. This seems to be the case when people seem to state, almost categorically, that AL clearly permits Communion for at least some divorced and remarried people, so the discussion then become about in what circumstances divorced and remarried people can receive Communion, or how widely can this be offered etc. Then anyone who questions whether AL actually means this at all is effectively accused of not actually understanding what the document is about, presumably because they haven’t had the understanding to see through the what is written to the core truth which is not written. That would seem to me to be an almost gnostic approach, in that it presumes an almost hidden meaning that is apparent only to those who understand and can see beyond the literal.

I do not believe that Cardinal Burke is. Yes he has expresses what he believes this document means, but he in order to do so he is reading the document in the light of established Church teaching. This is quite different from reading the document in the light of ones own opinion about what Pope Francis meant but didn’t actually write and then insisting that reading through the light of one’s own opinion creates an established factual basis upon which all must interpret. The difference between this approach and Cardinal Burke’s approach is that his he recommends reading AL in the light of truth (aka established Church teaching) as opposed to the light of our own opinions.

There is also a real danger that people seem to assume that they know Pope Francis’s opinions and then read the document in the light of what they assume the Pope’s opinions are. Not only can they not actually know Pope Francis’s opinions, but his personal opinions are simply his personal opinions and do not necessarily represent magisterial teaching. Pope Francis has been clear about this.

If something in a document (that does not purport to be in itself magisterial teaching, as in the case of a post-synodial apsotolic exhortation) is unclear then the only truthful way to read it is through the light if established Church teaching. In that way we are looking for clarity in the light of truth, rather than in the light of opinion.

If something is clearly stated then we take it at face value (bearing in mind that it may or may not be binding teaching depending on the context) but if something is not clearly stated then we must look for meaning in light of established Church teaching.

 

[irenaeus1]

No Church teaching has changed, or needs to.

The question was posed to OraLabora because this person stated, “I will stick to what the Church currently teaches”, which implies that Church teaching has changed.

 

[Ender]

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.

Give an example of a difficult case where adultery is involved that would permit the individual to receive communion. Is this what you have in mind?

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.

There is no doubt but that this is an extraordinarily difficult situation, although it doesn’t seem all that difficult to grasp the nature of the choice: endure a serious a serious hardship…or sin. How is this situation not covered by CCC 1761: "One may not do evil so that good may result from it"?

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.

What does culpability for the destruction of the first marriage have to do with the validity of the second? If the marriage was valid, and the husband is 100% responsible for breaking it up, is the wife free to marry a second time? Is her second marriage valid?

Ender