B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Doh boy, a question answered with a question.
But I’ll play the silly game…you tell me…its a rather big document, you quote something for me and we can work from there.
- Status
But I’ll play the silly game…you tell me…its a rather big document, you quote something for me and we can work from there.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I enjoy reading your posts.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes this view is erroneous if you understand the ongoing pastoral accompaniment requirement to be a single, interiorly unengaged and uninvolved mechanical meeting with a priest. If the couple had the understanding of this that you present here I suggest these are the last ones Pope Francis would admit to Communion even if all the other boxes he indicates are ticked.
Of course you don’t know what examples I mean by “ticking all the other boxes” … just reread the Argentinian Bishops Draft doc - they spell it out well according to Pope Francis.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Hello Father, good to come across your own posts again.
Good food for thought.
K
KSU
Guest
We just agreed to let it go, so please stop trying to engage me in discussing non-existing examples.
As to your opening paragraph, it seems you never read my post #114.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I am speaking to the thread - which involves others apart from just your good self my friend. It isn’t all about you.
It seems you have missed my point. I believe there are reasons why this is erroneous better than what you have previously opined. I get it that you would not agree and may be unable to see my point because of your strong counter view.
Nevermind, undecided readers here who I am addressing will likely understand the alternative view.
Have you tried reading FC, AL or Argentinian Draft yet?
They all mention the classic irregular examples that have explicitly troubled Prefects, Synods and Popes since at least the 1980s
.
K
KSU
Guest
Originally Posted by Blue Horizon:
Yes this view is erroneous if you understand the ongoing pastoral accompaniment requirement to be a single, interiorly unengaged and uninvolved mechanical meeting with a priest. If the couple had the understanding of this that you present here I suggest these are the last ones Pope Francis would admit to Communion even if all the other boxes he indicates are ticked.
Reply by me (KSU):
So, I ask you again: Unless you can give me actual, real-life examples of what you mean by “very particular persons caught up in very particular circumstances” in irregular marriages who can now receive Communion after a journey of discernment, accompaniment and instruction in the Faith with their priests, without a declaration of first-marriage nullity and without giving up sexual relations, please stop trying to engage me in discussing it further.
And yes, I know it isn’t all about me. Many of the world’s best theologians and many orthodox prelates have gone public with essentially the same questions I have.
Yes this view is erroneous if you understand the ongoing pastoral accompaniment requirement to be a single, interiorly unengaged and uninvolved mechanical meeting with a priest. If the couple had the understanding of this that you present here I suggest these are the last ones Pope Francis would admit to Communion even if all the other boxes he indicates are ticked.
Of course you don’t know what examples I mean by “ticking all the other boxes” … just reread the Argentinian Bishops Draft doc - they spell it out well according to Pope Francis.
Reply by me (KSU):
We just agreed to let it go, so please stop trying to engage me in discussing non-existing examples.
You were “speaking to the thread”? First, you opened by quoting me. Second, as I bolded above, you were speaking directly to me, concerning things only I said.
So, I ask you again: Unless you can give me actual, real-life examples of what you mean by “very particular persons caught up in very particular circumstances” in irregular marriages who can now receive Communion after a journey of discernment, accompaniment and instruction in the Faith with their priests, without a declaration of first-marriage nullity and without giving up sexual relations, please stop trying to engage me in discussing it further.
And yes, I know it isn’t all about me. Many of the world’s best theologians and many orthodox prelates have gone public with essentially the same questions I have.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
It seems you are not capable of a good faith and dispassionate conversation if you persist in pretending not to know or to have read the clear examples in the documents I previously quoted you - which I think most here are up to speed on - so I won’t be engaging you further for the moment sorry KSU.
K
KSU
Guest
Seriously, all you need do is copy and paste one of the examples which you say have been provided by the Argentinean Bishops; an example of “very particular persons caught up in very particular circumstances” in irregular marriages who can now receive Communion after a journey of discernment, accompaniment and instruction in the Faith with their priests, without a declaration of first-marriage nullity and without giving up sexual relations; and which you say has been spelled out “well according to Pope Francis.”
The fact is that nothing has been spelled out. For two years Pope Francis has had every opportunity to give us such examples before, during and after the Synod in AL. He did not. Nevertheless, you want the thread to believe that the Pope, in an ambiguous footnote he told reporters he couldn’t even remember, has intended to stand 2000 years of dogmatic Catholic teaching on its ear via a leaked, secrete letter concerning an Argentinean Bishops’s draft document.
You want us to believe something that orthodox theologians and prelates do not believe, and, in fact, have instructed their priests otherwise.
Really, Blue Horizon, reading your reiteration (and it’s getting a little impolite) reminds me of the so-called “mystery clause” of the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court decision upholding the never-before discovered constitutional right to abortion.
Seriously, my friend, you must have your reasons for this persistence, and I’m not knocking them, but your giving us no meat or potatoes, just a promised desert.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
What do you mean something that orthodox theologians and prelates do not believe, and, in fact, have instructed their priests otherwise?
My orthodoxy as a theologian has never been questioned…and I do not stand for it being questioned here. As a priest and theologian, I fully embraced the post-synodal apostolic exhortation from my first reading of it. Having taught this subject, it is a splendid document in every aspect.
My bishop, my priest confreres as well as my theological colleagues with whom I have either worked or been in associations with have had my reactions…we talk about the document and its applications among ourselves. We understand what it says – and we understand what it does not say.
Beyond that, the practicalities concerning Amoris Laetitia in my part of the world are being handled by bishops in closed discussions – together with each other as well as with their theological periti, as needed – and then the individual bishop with their priests, also in closed meetings – with no participation by non-priests, as we meet about what needs to be met about.
As I talk to my former students who contact me regarding the document, it is happening the same for them where they are in their presbyterates.
Frankly, that is the way it should be. That is all that needs to be said. No other answer is needed and nothing more needs to be said.
This is a matter for the Holy Father and the Bishops firstly and then for the Diocesan Bishop and his priests. And then, uniquely, those persons who specifically seek to be pastorally accompanied, as Amoris Laetitia speaks about.
While one can correctly say that there are some theologians and even some prelates who are experiencing difficulty, your original comment, in being phrased categorically, is rude and insulting to priests and theologians in this forum who are quite faithful to the Church – indeed precisely faithful because of being of one mind and thought with the Vicar of Christ – and I herewith seek assistance from a moderator.
K
KSU
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
T
ToTheWest
Guest
Sorry if I am intruding on your discussion, but I wanted to throw some thoughts out there.
I am trying to approach this whole Amoris Laetitia controversy as objectively and as open-minded as possible, so I too have been looking for good examples of situations where this debated exception might apply. I don’t know much at all about the topic, and had to get pretty creative, but here is one I came up with:
A Catholic woman is in an invalid second marriage, as she was unable to get her first marriage declared null. This second marriage produced young children that still live at home. She has a “reawakening” of her Catholic faith, and comes to realize that she is living in an objectively sinful situation and shouldn’t be taking communion until things are made right. Thus she tells her husband that she thinks they should live as brother and sister in accordance with Church teachings. The husband becomes enraged that she doesn’t view their marriage as valid (he is a “practicing Catholic” who goes to mass with her regularly, but still holds deeply sinful tendencies). Furthermore, he tells her that if he gets even the slightest hint that she doesn’t view their marriage as valid (such as her not taking communion), he will leave her, take the children and find another wife. In theory, the wife could stand up to her husband and trust that God will provide for her and protect the children, but after consulting with her priest, they determine that the risk of damage to the children is too high. It would be better for now that she continue taking communion and living as his wife, hoping that he will be repent and change (or if the situation is deemed abusive, she finds a safe way out of it)
Admittedly, the example above is complex, and situations like that may have never happened before. However, I suppose it is theoretically possible. If any situation similar to that did actually exist, it is doubtful that such a husband would care whether or not the wife to communion (he would probably only care that she lived as his wife in every other respect). She could therefore choose to abstain from taking communion and trust that God would bless her with grace by other means in response to her willingness to abide by the laws of the Church.
Apart from this one, I am struggling to come up with any examples that don’t get into extremely subjective territory. For example, someone could claim that their children would be significantly damaged (spiritually, emotionally or socially) by knowing that their parents were not taking communion because they were not validly married. How one determines that such damage would occur, I’m not too sure, but I suppose it is possible. The counter argument would probably be that many children would benefit by seeing the sacrifices their parents are making to abide by the law of the Church. So again, theoretically possible, but seems highly subjective and would require a more concrete situation to evaluate.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I could be way off, but I find the topic intriguing and wanted to throw those out there for discussion.
God bless!
K
kyrie03
Guest
I’m also curious…
Anyone else find that Richca’s post provides an answer to the question? Is it applicable to this hypothetical case?
K
KSU
Guest
You should be grateful that God has given you the intelligence and courage to be able to ask the obvious questions. Catholicism is always advanced by honest inquiry and competent answers. I’m not the person, however, who can claim any competency in this particular area.
Your question naturally has been debated for centuries. Fortunately for the Church, this topic involves one of those “hard” situations about which Christ Himself gave us the answer which He wants to govern the situation:
catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church
That’s the “easy” answer. Good Pope Francis, who grieves for his suffering children in irregular marriages, wants very badly to determine if Christ’s answer permits exceptions; thus the Synod and AL.
K
KSU
Guest
To TheWest, in my reply above, I said your question naturally has been debated for centuries.
What I meant is that your type of question has been asked and debated for centuries. There are many variations, of course, but up to now the Church has not been persuaded to see much wiggle room in Christ’s words defining adultery. That’s the key to any “development” of the controlling dogma.
What I meant is that your type of question has been asked and debated for centuries. There are many variations, of course, but up to now the Church has not been persuaded to see much wiggle room in Christ’s words defining adultery. That’s the key to any “development” of the controlling dogma.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I can see no conditional about this in either AL or the ArgDraft or the Pope’s letter of affirmation.
In some cases of irregularity Pope Francis clearly affirms there is a pathway to Renconciliation and Communion that does not absolutely necessitate a firm resolution to abandon the 2nd marriage. He goes even further as to imply ongoing sexual activity is not always an impediment either.
And many theologically well trained and seasoned Pastors, including my PP, would agree.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You are not intruding, this is a forum.
While your example may be a valid example the more common problematic reality that I believe the Pope’s mention in the usual Apostolic Exhortations since the 1980s is more simple than this. It is where the remarried couple have not been able to receive justice from the Tribunal for purely technical reasons. Also they have a stable 2nd marriage with kids and they both sincerely believe, from the ongoing counsel of involved officials, the 1st marriage does not actually exist before God. Therefore they believe they are in fact free before God to marry each other but recognise of course that this is not yet Canonically possible…and may never be in the foreseeable future.
Keep in mind that the failure of a Tribunal to declare nullity is by no means the same as declaring that such a decision in the future is impossible. The subjective conviction of the couple may well be objectively correct before God and the officials involved likely agree with them. Unfortunately human justice is regularly enough frail in both secular and religious courts for the same old reasons.
- Status