Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[twf]

“the pontiff appears to have endorsed their main conclusion, which is that Amoris Laetitia opened the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.”

That certainly would be a misreading and a misstatement.

The document notes that such is not to be said.

Certain* particular complex cases* with serious discernment by a Priest - does *not *open the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.

Such would be a false reading.

What then is your reading? Everyone else in the world has read the document and letter and concluded that couples in invalid marriages may, under certain particular circumstances as discerned by pastors, receive communion. It opens “A” door. There’s no other way to read it. It states as much in plain language.

 

[Bookcat]

What then is your reading? Everyone else in the world has read the document and letter and concluded that couples in invalid marriages may, under certain particular circumstances as discerned by pastors, receive communion. It opens “A” door. There’s no other way to read it. It states as much in plain language.

No there is another way…one that is more precise. As is the phrase leads to the wrong conclusion - that the document expressly said was not to happen.

Certain particular complex cases with serious discernment by a Priest - does *not *open the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.

Such would be a false reading.

 

[rcwitness]

What then is your reading? Everyone else in the world has read the document and letter and concluded that couples in invalid marriages may, under certain particular circumstances as discerned by pastors, receive communion. It opens “A” door. There’s no other way to read it. It states as much in plain language.

Do you think it is maybe an appeal to those, in those situations, to compel them to Reconciliation? Not anything new… ?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

In short: It depends. I’m sure you didn’t need to be proficient in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, philosophy, be a genius in theology and law to understand Jesus’s teaching. Now, I’m afraid, that’s the bare minimum. I wonder if this was the original plan… Take 10 canon lawyers, and not all will agree on just what it means and entails.

So in other words, it is OK in some cases but no one can agree on exactly what those cases are, and if you are divorced and remarried, and have sex with your spouse you may or may not be committing a mortal sin but nobody knows for sure if you are or not.

Thanks. I understand now.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Do you think it is maybe an appeal to those, in those situations, to compel them to Reconciliation? Not anything new… ?

Certainly it is. As of now remarriage is the only sin where the church basically says you cannot be forgiven because of the consequence of the sin. Now the church is simply saying that there may be a path to reconciliation based on discernment with a priest.

I would not be concerned with this being abused any more than our current system is. the annulment process is already abused to the point that basically every first marriage is found invalid. We are ok with that? But not this?

I think we can learn a lot from the orthodox here. You know for the first 1000 years of Christianity, marriage wasn’t even much on the radar of the church. Marriage was done in civil ceremonies without a priest.

When one looks at the history of marriage in the church it becomes much more clear that things are not as absolute as we make them out to be.

 

[Bookcat]

As of now remarriage is the only sin where the church basically says you cannot be forgiven because of the consequence of the sin.

No. Any and every sin could be forgiven - if there is repentance.

Now the church is simply saying that there may be a path to reconciliation based on discernment with a priest.

Not quite what was said. Tis more complex than that…one must read the whole document of course the various Teachings of the Church on the matter.

And there is always a path of reconciliation open - repentance of the sin.

The question here is certain very particular cases where there is reduced culpability and very complex issues…

 

[Jon_S_1]

No. Any and every sin could be forgiven - if there is repentance.

Not quite what was said. Tis more complex than that…one must read the whole document of course the various Teachings of the Church on the matter.

And there is always a path of reconciliation open - repentance of the sin.

The question here is certain very particular cases where there is reduced culpability and very complex issues…

Not really book cat. Example.

2 Protestants are married. They divorce, they remarry in a Protestant remarriage with a pastor and his blessing in a church. The believe they did nothing wrong. The first marriage no kids. The second marriage 5 kids. 15 years later they want to become Catholic.

The answer we give them is that they are right now sinning and will always be sinning if they continue to live as husband and wife.

Really?

Oh, but they can donate $500 and fill out some papers (annulment) and that’s just fine. No one flinches.

But the pope suggests a long period of reflection, penance, counseling and discernment with a priest followed by the sacrament of reconciliation and we all lose our minds.

Really?

 

[rcwitness]

The question here is certain very particular cases where there is reduced culpability and very complex issues…

Like Jon S expressed… and I agree, Annulments are already abused. To then push people to their priest to discern these “certain complex” situation doesn’t give confidence.

I just spoke with a friend who is remarried and asked about his Annulment of his first marriage. I asked what was the basis for the Annulment. He didn’t even know! He just babbled about there being many questions and forms that the Tribunal considers. He was married in the Church. It is rediculous.

 

[Bookcat]

Oh, but they can donate $500 and fill out some papers (annulment) and that’s just fine. No one flinches.

Such would be a very erroneous conception of the realities involved. Simply a completely false rendition.

No it is not “just fine” - very very serious investigation goes into seeking to discover if the marriage was null from the beginning.

It is not a question of a donation and paperwork!

 

[Bookcat]

I just spoke with a friend who is remarried and asked about his Annulment of his first marriage. I asked what was the basis for the Annulment. He didn’t even know! He just babbled about there being many questions and forms that the Tribunal considers. He was married in the Church. It is rediculous.

Again a false conception of the very serious process of seeking if the Marriage was null from the beginning.

The fact that a particular person did not read the details of why the marriage was not valid - has no barring on the realities involved - other than that your Friend did not read it and just took the conclusion…

 

[rcwitness]

Again a false conception of the very serious process of seeking if the Marriage was null from the beginning.

The fact that a particular person did not read the details of why the marriage was not valid - has no barring on the realities involved - other than that your Friend did not read it and just took the conclusion…

Did not read? You realize how that sounds? He doesn’t even know why his marriage was supposedly invalid! How pathetic is that?

But Bookcat, don’t get me wrong. I hear you. And I’m not necessarily saying you are wrong.

I just think that if we actually start asking people who have had their marriage Annulled, why it was invalid, I 5hink we would be shocked to learn that many don’t even know, or misunderstand why.

Does that mean those marriages were actually valid? Not necessarily, and that’s why I acknowledge what you are trying to say. But are Annulment an infallible decision? I realize it is based on the information provided the Tribunal, but there seems to be a plethora of ways to declare any marriage invalid.

 

[rcwitness]

Makes me wonder if the hierarchy is content with a Church Militant full of ignorant and dysfunctional members.

 

[Bookcat]

Did not read? You realize how that sounds? He doesn’t even know why his marriage was supposedly invalid! How pathetic is that?

But Bookcat, don’t get me wrong. I hear you. And I’m not necessarily saying you are wrong.

I cannot account for your Friends lack of knowledge…if he read the document he would know and can of course ask questions. Perhaps he simply was so happy that he did not need to read any further but just when to planning to get married…

 

[rcwitness]

I cannot account for your Friends lack of knowledge…if he read the document he would know and can of course ask questions. Perhaps he simply was so happy that he did not need to read any further but just when to planning to get married…

But that still means that the pastoral care of the Church did not see to his contrition for the reasons why he was in an invalid marriage. Wouldn’t they be very concerned that he knew what his mistake was?

Again, I hear ya. Maybe I’m just disappointed and frustrated with all the dysfunction and messed up situations so many of us are in.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Such would be a very erroneous conception of the realities involved. Simply a completely false rendition.

No it is not “just fine” - very very serious investigation goes into seeking to discover if the marriage was null from the beginning.

It is not a question of a donation and paperwork!

Sorry Bookcat,

But as much as we’d like to think this, it’s simply not true. The appearance of a very serious process takes place. But the outcome of that process is almost guaranteed prior to signing the paperwork and taking the check. At least here in the United States.

It’s a very real problem that has already undermined the sanctity of marriage. It is the manipulation of a “loophole”.

How much better would we be if instead we aided in conversion and reconciliation instead of pretending that they were never married in the first place?

 

[Bookcat]

Makes me wonder if the hierarchy is content with a Church Militant full of ignorant and dysfunctional members.

No.

See the Catechism, the the Compendium of the Catechism, countless editions of the Scriptures and countless documents and homilies from the Popes…etc etc etc…

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry Bookcat,

Apology accepted.

Yes what I noted is the case.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I cannot account for your Friends lack of knowledge…if he read the document he would know and can of course ask questions. Perhaps he simply was so happy that he did not need to read any further but just when to planning to get married…

As part of our parish RCIA TEAM. I have aided many people who come and need annulment. Not one was ever denied and the pastoral care regarding it was more concerned with filling the forms out correctly.

I think we need a change.

 

[Bookcat]

It is important to read the whole documents etc. And to understand what has been said more completely - unfortunately in our society of “news bites” things are misconstrued.

If Jesus was preaching in Galilee today there would be headlines - “Jewish Rabbi said his disciples should cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes” and “Jewish Rabbi said to ignore Mosaic Law!”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Apology accepted.

Yes what I noted is the case.

I’m curious how many annulments you have assisted people with or been a part of?