Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Persecuted]

It would seem that this approach that is now being advocated by the Holy Father is in contradiction to this letter:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Drafted by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope JPII for dissemination to all the bishops of the Church.

Here is the most relevant portion:

In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.

1. Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

 

[Jon_S_1]

I noticed that. Grave matter does not translate to mortal sin.

Yes and in the case of tribunal or this proposal, the culpability essentially transfers from the individual to the church since the individual is acting in obedience to the church.

 

[Persecuted]

As a Protestant revert to Catholicism I find all of this quite troubling.

I left Protestantism because of its epistemological incoherence and I was quite confident that I had found the one true Church founded by Jesus. One of my major hurdles in returning to the Church was the Papacy.

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but when Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, what do others take it to mean?

In that passage after becoming Catholic and hearing/reading Catholic commentators I took it to mean that the Pope would not be allowed to teach error, and more specifically in the form of an ex cathedra statement. Is this how others understand it or is my understanding a bit too limited?

Are we to understand “not prevail” as not ‘ultimately prevail’, but that the gates of hell may, in fact, swirl all around us and even move in and amongst the Church possibly to the point that it looks as though they may prevail but never actually finally prevail?

Sorry, but this whole saga has been a cause of great concern for me, though I will admit I am naturally prone to doubt.

 

[Jon_S_1]

As a Protestant revert to Catholicism I find all of this quite troubling.

I left Protestantism because of its epistemological incoherence and I was quite confident that I had found the one true Church founded by Jesus. One of my major hurdles in returning to the Church was the Papacy.

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but when Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, what do others take it to mean?

In that passage after becoming Catholic and hearing/reading Catholic commentators I took it to mean that the Pope would not be allowed to teach error, and more specifically in the form of an ex cathedra statement. Is this how others understand it or is my understanding a bit too limited?

Are we to understand “not prevail” as not ‘ultimately prevail’, but that the gates of hell may, in fact, swirl all around us and even move in and amongst the Church possibly to the point that it looks as though they may prevail but never actually finally prevail?

Sorry, but this whole saga has been a cause of great concern for me, though I will admit I am naturally prone to doubt.

The gates of hell will not prevail. The church will not teach error. Either we believe it or we don’t.

It is scandalous how many people claim for the sake of orthodoxy that the pope or the church are changing or in error.

They are simply Protestants with a Catholic label, and they place their own personal opinions on the level of dogma. Rather than trying to understand why, they say, the church or pope is wrong.

I am sorry you are scandalized, I get it though, have faith, trust in Gods protection, and be assured he is driving the ship.

 

[KSU]

As a Protestant revert to Catholicism I find all of this quite troubling.

I left Protestantism because of its epistemological incoherence and I was quite confident that I had found the one true Church founded by Jesus. One of my major hurdles in returning to the Church was the Papacy.

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but when Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, what do others take it to mean?

In that passage after becoming Catholic and hearing/reading Catholic commentators I took it to mean that the Pope would not be allowed to teach error, and more specifically in the form of an ex cathedra statement. Is this how others understand it or is my understanding a bit too limited?

Are we to understand “not prevail” as not ‘ultimately prevail’, but that the gates of hell may, in fact, swirl all around us and even move in and amongst the Church possibly to the point that it looks as though they may prevail but never actually finally prevail?

Sorry, but this whole saga has been a cause of great concern for me, though I will admit I am naturally prone to doubt.

You are hardly alone in your discomfort, but don’t worry: the Pope has not spoken ex cathedra concerning this issue, and serious efforts have already been taken to obtain clarification.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here is a fantastic article in First Things regarding what we are discussing. The author (from Franciscan university Steubenville) discusses how the discipline change in this area of remarriage originates in Pope John Paul II,and he speaks extensively about the ideas of culpability and freedom which affects whether something like perpetual adultery is actually a mortal sin that bars one from the Eucharist.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/crime-punishment-and-amoris-laetitia

 

[RPRPsych]

Familiaris Consortio 84 written by a saint.

Deacon John, while I absolutely share your viewpoint on this issue and on the verity of the teachings in Familiaris Consortio, “X is written by a Saint” is not a guarantee of inerrancy. (For example, Saint Gregory of Nyssa was a Universalist and believed that Mary experienced doubt at the moment of the crucifixion.)

A better argument would be that FC is consistent with the entire body of Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Matrimony, beginning with Our Saviour himself. AL (or at least certain portions with it) is difficult to reconcile with that body of teaching, and there’s the rub.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Familiaris Consortio 84 written by a saint.

AL is possibly also written by a Saint.

What though is your point?

 

[philipl]

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.

The Pope was responding to a document by the bishops entitled ‘Basic criteria for the application of chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ which details ways of ‘accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness’ for Catholics living in irregular family situations. That chapter focuses on the need to support and integrate divorcees into the life of the Church, specifying that “in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments”.

In his letter the Pope underlines the urgency of formation of priests for the practice of discernment, stressing that this is central to the task of accompanying families in difficulty. He calls for in-depth catechesis on the exhortation which he says will “certainly help the growth, consolidation and holiness of family life”.

Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015.

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/12/pope_endorses_argentine_bishops_document_on_amoris_laetitia/1257635

Although a recently published set of guidelines for implementing Pope Francis’s document on the family in Argentina may have been only preliminary, the pontiff appears to have endorsed their main conclusion, which is that Amoris Laetitia opened the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.

cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/09/12/pope-okays-argentine-doc-communion-divorced-remarried/

While I think it clearly defines marriages, I am bothered by the communion lack of clarity. If we are going to allow communion for people having sex outside of marriage then we might as well marry same sex couples.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, no matter how you slice it, what you are telling us is this: Priests in certain cases now have the authority after very careful discernment, etc. to override a tribunal, and without any further ado find that the first marriage was invalid.

No absolutely not.

 

[Bookcat]

I know it isn’t. But it seems some are treating it as such, which simply raises the interesting point of what the heck is going on? Does the Eucharist confer grace by mere reception of it? If infant Baptism confers grace despite the state of the baby’s cognizance, then how does the Eucharist differ? There are far deeper underlying issues here, it seems.

PS-thanks for the links.

The Eucharist is a Sacrament for the living. For those living in Grace…

Not to be received by a person in Mortal sin.

 

[TCEL]

The Eucharist is a Sacrament for the living. For those living in Grace…

Not to be received by a person in Mortal sin.

Yes, that is how I understand it too. But, no matter how I look at it, this provision seems to either be saying that marriage is dissoluble in some cases, or that it is permissible in some cases to receive Communion anyway, despite marriage’s indissolubility. This is what I am wrestling with.

Is all marriage an image of Christ’s union with the Church? Or is that only true of sacramental marriages? Yes, it’s true that we all far short of the ideal… and there’s the rub. I can sympathize with the situation of someone in poverty, in a second marriage, who is threatened with abandonment for refusal of sexual relations. Some Jews in Jesus’ day could write a bill of divorce for very trivial reasons.

Is the provision simply saying that we need to accept the tension that some people are in a second, invalid marriage, and still receiving Communion? Since we are a mystical body in Communion, does that not still affect us all?

And, isn’t Communion also related to marriage? Aren’t we lying when we give ourselves to someone we have no right to give ourselves to?

Anyway, like I said, this just raises a bunch of questions for me.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, that is how I understand it too. But, no matter how I look at it, this provision seems to either be saying that marriage is dissoluble in some cases, or that it is permissible in some cases to receive Communion anyway, despite marriage’s indissolubility. This is what I am wrestling with.

Negative on the first. Cannot happen. A valid sacramental and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved but by death.

On the second affirmative - it seems yes in some very complex singular cases - the Priest discerns that the person is not culpable for mortal sin though the matter is grave.

This is not new - it happens and is permitted in other cases involving grave matter too. The Priest discerns the penitent is not culpable for mortal sin and instructs them to received Holy Communion even if they fall into Y.

What would be new (if this is the case) is that where before this discernment was not permitted even in such very complex singular cases - it would seem now (if this interpretation remains the case and is set) - to be “possible” in those certain cases.

The normal general discipline though has not changed. Only it would be some pastoral provision would be added for such rather exceptional singular cases.

 

[Bookcat]

Is the provision simply saying that we need to accept the tension that some people are in a second, invalid marriage, and still receiving Communion? .

No.

 

[Bookcat]

t.

Just as a Priest counseling a penitent who has lost much of their freedom with particular sexual sin - discerning that that person is not committing mortal sin in their case - does not effect the reality of the sinfulness of sexual sin or what the Teaching regarding the gravity of the sin. It only goes to the culpability of the person in question and is restricted to their particular case. So too does such discernment in this sort of complex marriage case not effect the realities of what marriage is etc.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, that is how I understand it too. But, no matter how I look at it, this provision seems to either be saying that marriage is dissoluble in some cases, or that it is permissible in some cases to receive Communion anyway, despite marriage’s indissolubility. This is what I am wrestling with.

Is all marriage an image of Christ’s union with the Church? Or is that only true of sacramental marriages? Yes, it’s true that we all far short of the ideal… and there’s the rub. I can sympathize with the situation of someone in poverty, in a second marriage, who is threatened with abandonment for refusal of sexual relations. Some Jews in Jesus’ day could write a bill of divorce for very trivial reasons.

Is the provision simply saying that we need to accept the tension that some people are in a second, invalid marriage, and still receiving Communion? Since we are a mystical body in Communion, does that not still affect us all?

And, isn’t Communion also related to marriage? Aren’t we lying when we give ourselves to someone we have no right to give ourselves to?

Anyway, like I said, this just raises a bunch of questions for me.

I am not sure if you had a chance to read the article I linked above. I think it is helpful in understanding how this all works out.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/crime-punishment-and-amoris-laetitia

 

[TCEL]

I am not sure if you had a chance to read the article I linked above. I think it is helpful in understanding how this all works out.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/crime-punishment-and-amoris-laetitia

Yes, thank you.

There is a significant “background fact” that we have to know before we can enter into this debate: We have to know that John Paul had already effected a huge change in the discipline of the Church regarding divorced and remarried Catholics when, in his 1983 reform of the Canon Law of the Church, he lifted the excommunication that had for centuries been automatically imposed on persons who remarry without having their first marriage annulled. All the language used by Francis of “integrating” the remarried into the Church originates in John Paul. The shift from excommunication to integration is a sea-change in discipline. And yet Hitchens and the other critics of Buttiglione do not think that John Paul departed from the faith of the Church on marriage. When then we are puzzled by the change in discipline proposed by Francis (as most readers take it to be), we should not assume that he has departed from the faith of the Church.

Doesn’t it seem one thing to lift an excommunication, and another to allow for Communion? But perhaps not. My understanding of excommunication is that it places someone outside of reception of the sacraments.

 

[TCEL]

Just as a Priest counseling a penitent who has lost much of their freedom with particular sexual sin - discerning that that person is not committing mortal sin in their case - does not effect the reality of the sinfulness of sexual sin or what the Teaching regarding the gravity of the sin. It only goes to the culpability of the person in question and is restricted to their particular case. So too does such discernment in this sort of complex marriage case not effect the realities of what marriage is etc.

Could not this reasoning also apply to contraception, though?

 

[Bookcat]

Could not this reasoning also apply to contraception, though?

In certain cases.

And some innocent spouses endure their spouses practice of non-abortive contraception - in good conscience (in the way directed by the Church).

(the church issued a document actually for confessors guiding them in their counsel and direction on this matter -perhaps something similar will come forth regarding the present discussion).

 

[Bookcat]

Keep in mind again…this is all revolving around a “possibility” in certain very complex cases of mitigated culpability with careful discernment.