The problem of course is that one can find other bishops who say the opposite so the question remains: may some of the remarried receive communion now who were barred from receiving it before? There is no answer to that question. All we know is that some say yes and others say no. The practical result of this is that it is…if you can find the right bishop.Amoris Laetitia does not allow Communion for remarried, says bishop…
And with this assertion, I am done with this thread. People are now arguing past each other and stretching arguments to the point of ridiculousness and insults. Clearly we will never agree on this topic. I will wait to see how this plays out in reality, and let go and let God.Is the person being forced to have sex without their consent, if so, that IS rape.
My problem with this, and why there is some disagreement, is that multiple bishops are reading it in the light of Church teaching, but not all agree on exactly where doctrine ends. As I have mentioned before this very issue was a point that Cardinal Burke failed to convince the majority of at the Synod on the Family. If you read it in light of a fact you believe doctrine to prove the same point, that is the very meaning of begging the question.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 …
What is so hard about accurate reporting. Even the Herald misquote Bishop Egan. What was said was:Amoris Laetitia does not allow Communion for remarried, says bishop
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/amoris-laetitia-does-not-allow-communion-for-remarried-says-bishop/
I also liked this quotes;Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No.
I think this needs to be reiterated often. If we are going to acknowledge the responsibility to follow one’s conscience, it should be clear what conscience is. On the other hand, conscience is not, “only things that agree with the Church.” That would be empty.Does the Pope leave a lot of matters to individual conscience, as some media commentators have suggested? No, he doesn’t, if by conscience they mean ‘What I feel.’
This is one of the reasons I do not understand or agree with the traditional view. I constantly see these two contradictory elements used as reasons why communion must never again be given, without continence. This is the one side I hear, that it is this public objective state. The other side is that the private adulterous act is the reason. These two are in conflict, both with each other and in the manner every other sin is treated by the Catholic Church. I accept the prudential argument. However, it is also why I do not see this as a doctrinal issue. Again, not all bishops are unified that it is a doctrinal issue.The denial of Holy Communion to public sinners (canon 915) made up of those in adulterous second unions is not a legal determination that all such people are subjectively in mortal sin, but rather that the public adulterous state of such persons objectively and seriously contravenes God’s law.
I hve been in a parish for 25 years, and I ahve absolutely no clue about anyone else’s marriage status re: the question at hand. And I would suspect that im many, if not most parishes, most people are totally unaware of the status of other couples’ marriages.Here is a reflection on Amoris Laetitia by Fr. Gerald E. Murray. Really it’s mostly a reflection on Chapter 8 and its effects.
An excerpt:
The denial of Holy Communion to public sinners (canon 915) made up of those in adulterous second unions is not a legal determination that all such people are subjectively in mortal sin, but rather that the public adulterous state of such persons objectively and seriously contravenes God’s law. To ignore objectively wrong behavior that is a matter of public knowledge, and allow such persons to receive Holy Communion would create a situation in which “the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”
Reflections on Amoris Laetitia
I think the important thing is that there is no confusion, even if the second relationship is not broadcasted and they do not tell anyone about the first marriage, the law is still there for them. when those in the second relationship choose to repent, they will know what sin they committed. If exceptions are made for some cases, they may think they did not sin as well, as this “mercy thing” probably applies to them even if a priest has not told them it is OK. They will have been misled by the this new way of teaching. First is repentance and then comes mercy. The circumstances may be different but the same law applies to all.I hve been in a parish for 25 years, and I ahve absolutely no clue about anyone else’s marriage status re: the question at hand. And I would suspect that im many, if not most parishes, most people are totally unaware of the status of other couples’ marriages.
This certainly could apply if, for example, someone with some community reputation (such as, for example, the local mayor) who gets a divorce, and remarries shortly thereafter (too short a time for a decree of nullity, and likely other information floating around).
However, if someone who was not a member of the parish at the time of the divorce, had no public reputation, and now is married with children and comes to the parish - who exactly is it that is going to know the status of their marriage, unless they choose to broadcast it? No one.
I am not disagreeing with the issue of the scandal if everyone knoew the first wife, knows the second, and knows enough details to make the connections. However, for someone away from the Church for a significant amount of time and comes back, but to a different parish in a different location, the likelihood of scandal appears to be somewhere between none and a negative number.
To wit: the issue applies in some circumstances and not in others.
And it is a footnote that the Pope cannot remember. God help us.Father Murray, in his article, discusses the matter at some length. He agrees that there is a change in the discipline, even if only made apparent by footnote. But he concludes: “It’s regrettable. The new “interpretation” will have far reaching consequences and will produce much sorrow and division in the life of the Church.”
Or he is wrong and this new interpretation will produce spiritual fruit within the life of the Church. Time will tell.But he concludes: “It’s regrettable. The new “interpretation” will have far reaching consequences and will produce much sorrow and division in the life of the Church.”
Agreed, but the spiritual fruit may come in a way not expected.Or he is wrong and this new interpretation will produce spiritual fruit within the life of the Church. Time will tell.
And yes, God is helping us.
Then it is good that no one is teaching contrary to the Catholic faith. Just to be clear, how does one “not follow” in this case, except by not remarrying? After all, the Pope is not really asking for any thing from the laity that one can obey or disobey.The popes themselves teach this. Ven. Pius IX said: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., even wrote as follows:
.
I am not sure, I do not have the complete quote for you, but I do not think he was talking to the laity. You could look it up if you like. I must go now.Then it is good that no one is teaching contrary to the Catholic faith. Just to be clear, how does one “not follow” in this case, except by not remarrying? After all, the Pope is not really asking for any thing from the laity that one can obey or disobey.
How could he convince the others at the Synod when he wasn’the invited to attend? Cardinal Burke is good, but even he has not got the ability to convince others during debates he hadn’t been invited to.As I have mentioned before this very issue was a point that Cardinal Burke failed to convince the majority of at the Synod on the Family.
He did attend.How could he convince the others at the Synod when he wasn’the invited to attend? Cardinal Burke is good, but even he has not got the ability to convince others during debates he hadn’t been invited to.
Since the situation is not different, just that life is at the end, it supports the disciplinary nature of who can receive communion.Even if no solution is possible, they may eventually be able to receive the sacraments in danger of death.
He did not attend. He may have visited Rome at the time the Synod was happening, as did many others, but he was not at the Synod. He was not in the hall when the discussions were taking place, he could not take part in the discussions, he could not make any interventions, he could not vote. He was not invited as a delegate to the Synod.He did attend.
This situation is very different since at the point of death there can actually be a resolution to sin no more.I came across another interesting consideration, though I have yet to find it in canon law. However, both Fr. Serpa and Fr. Zuhlsdorf agree, that a person remarried may receive communion as part of last rites.
wdtprs.com/blog/2014/05/ask-father-salvation-for-divorced-and-remarried/
Since the situation is not different, just that life is at the end, it supports the disciplinary nature of who can receive communion.