Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[irenaeus1]

What I have said is fairly plain and obvious and not really needing a heavy duty analysis or too much over thinking to grasp.
If somebody lodges a case with a Tribunal and a decree of nullity is eventually issued then who are we to question it. The Church has made a decision, all people are free to move on with their lives with moral certainty whether you and Ithink some of those involved are manipulative or not. Jesus asks no more of those sincerely enough involved.

If any involved party is aggrieved they are of course free to follow their own conscience in the matter privately and in the public sphere as far as Canon Law allows. If someone believes they are still married regardless of the Tribunals finding then by all means they should not go to Communion. But to criticise their remarried partner for doing so would be to oppose both Peter and Jesus who surely expect faithful Catholics to accept such official judgements regardless of the absolute truth of the matter which in the end noone knows with absolute certitude. Such is most of life.

I disagree. I know of a couple where one individual is confident that their marriage is valid, but the other spouse, in their desire to receive a declaration of nullity, was not entirely truthful in presenting their case in order to “stack the deck” in their favor so to speak, in obtaining a null verdict. The spouse who knew that the truth was being stretched could object, but like any ‘trial’, the authorities have to make the best decision based on the evidence given. Since we know that a declaration of nullity is not an infallible decision, mistakes can be (and are) made.

 

[irenaeus1]

There are always tares amongst the wheat. Calling them out does not mean that all the wheat becomes tares…

Maybe so, but I don’t believe there is any reason to publicly chastise for such a few tares. My gosh, what is going on in Argentina that the Pope thinks this is such a widespread problem to demand a public rebuke.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Unfortunately, Pope Francis’ confidence in the clergy does not always come through well, and he has publicly often been quite critical of the clergy… what with his comments accusing priests of using the confessional as a torture chamber or where he mentioned that priests were either acting as animals (or treating single parents as animals – depending on the translation)… either one not reflecting well on priests, etc.

Actually, I have read his various texts and addresses to the priests. They are not “quite critical to the clergy” at all…they are in fact, like the good father that he is, a reproach to those priests who, for example, are too severe in the sacrament of penance or who are failing to meet parishioners where they actually are in life and then pastorally accompanying them with compassion and solicitude in their journey with the Lord rather than rigidly applying – and over-applying – canon law when, as they themselves know, the cura animarum gives them breadth of latitude in various pastoral decisions.

If there is even a handful in a diocese such as that, they need to be re-directed by the intervention of their bishop and their brother priests that such behaviour is not to be.

It is to be hoped that priests, thus addressed by the very Vicar of Christ, will embrace the dirrective of the admonition and dutifully conform themselves to what he has called them to by the Vicar of Christ.

I also vividly remember his admonition against parish office personnel as “sacramental gate keepers” and how these people are to be rebuked…something as a priest I could not agree with more, from my own experience.

These are very welcomed and needed interventions by the Holy Father, which also provide opportunities and invitation to bishops and major superiors of Religious to themselves examine individually the priests under their care and apply as needed correctives to these individuals.

It is true also for the presybyterates by which we are able to provide fraternal correction to priests who may be falling short and are in need of re-orienting their thoughts and their priorities.

I should also add: his text that the confessional was not a torture chamber was one of the most beautiful and touching reflections on the sacrament I have ever heard in all my priesthood…delivered in the context of a workshop for priests and bishops by the Apostolic Penitentiary. It was magnificent and I have the copy of it to this day, to re-read and refer back to. It is an examination every priest should measure himself against.

His other comment you refer to was also most singularly apt.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Maybe so, but I don’t believe there is any reason to publicly chastise for such a few tares. My gosh, what is going on in Argentina that the Pope thinks this is such a widespread problem to demand a public rebuke.

As a priest, I welcomed the public statements.

To publicly chastise will, it is hope, cause every priest to pause and to ask if he is in any way acting against the mind of the pope and the way we do things today…and if he is, he needs to correct himself.

Problems that the Pope addresses may have origin in his personal pastoral experiences but they are also formed from his years as a Cardinal when he had, because of his portfolios, a growing international experience and exposure.

He has a breadth of pastoral experience and at a level that is truly extraordinary and well beyond the norm for his position.

The issues are certainly not limited to Argentina…they can be found very far indeed from that country’s borders.

 

[KSU]

Well KSU I am not sure you are old enough to be this “whipper snapper’s” dad but I appreciate the compliment all the same thanks .

I’m basically a glass half-full person who sees any goodness in a world weakened by Original Sin as a cause of joy and leave the mistakes, errors, immaturities and veniality of both petitioners and judges to be rightly judged at death. I don’t expect institutions to be perfect and not abused by clever individuals because that level pof perfection is impossible in this life. It does not keep me awake at night because I am not trying to control the world but mostly only myself - and I don’t do the best of jobs even there some of the time. The rest I leave to God to advance and those who actual temporal responsibility it is to do so.
Anything more is just unhelpful chicken-lichen stuff and likely of the devil.

** I understand, except that the personal philosophy you describe appears to be more of a goal than a fact-- you prove by your posts in this and other threads that you really do deeply concern yourself about issues (undeniably the issue in this thread), and that you get as frustrated as the rest of us humans. But that’s something about which you should feel good. I wish you were a soldier in my camp.**

No, I don’t think I am wholly committed to that as explanation.
Jesus’s teaching is surely not black and white here for if it was we wouldn’t have Tribunals

Sure we would; Tribunals are hardly concerned only with adultery.

And again, if it were black and white we wouldn’t have the clear cultural evolution/adaption of Jesus’s alleged unchanging words on this topic in each of the Gospels…not the differing interpretations and practices re remarriage in the different Christian denominations all of which allegedly should not be confused or differ over these “black and white words” of Jesus on this topic.

**First, no Gospel degrades, dilutes or minimizes Matthew 19. The Pharisees are questioning Jesus about divorce, and Jesus corrects their practice by instructing them that that’s not what God wanted. That is black and white dogma about adultery–no exception. No Pope ever said otherwise, including Francis. If you want to prove your theory about the meaning of footnote 351, you will have to look elsewhere than Matthew 19.

Second, “the differing interpretations and practices re remarriage in the different Christian denominations” are in spite of the black and white words of Jesus on this topic, not because His words admit exceptions. The Church, including Pope Francis, would never support you on that.**

If Jesus didn’t want to overly traumatize those outside his inner circle and so spoke in parables to allow time for assimilation rather than confrontation then why cannot Pope Francis do the same?

*“With many such parables Jesus spoke the word to them, to the extent that they could understand. He did not say anything to them without a parable. But privately He explained all things to His own disciples.”

**You might have at least a weak point there if Matthew 19 was a parable. But it’s not–Jesus wanted to nail down His teaching to the Jews and us without possibility of exception or ambiguity. The fact that He did not use a parable clearly indicates that a little traumatizing was in order. ***

Of course [Pope Francis] knew what he wanted. He also knows that many true blue Catholics aren’t quite ready for it so he seems to speaks in riddles so far as they are concerned.

**Blue, I have to give you an A for effort. That the Pope was using a parable-like riddle so as to spare us deluded traditional Catholics a little traumatizing is a gambit I never heard articulated before. I agree with you one hundred percent, though, that he purposefully spoke in a riddle-like manner for some reason he considers worth it. Just as he did with the riddles in the beautiful Laudato Si’ and in Evangelii Gaudium. **

 

[rcwitness]

Do you notice how some do not refer to Jesus’ actual Teachings in Scripture?

This is all we really need. And some interpretation of “porneia”.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Do you notice how some do not refer to Jesus’ actual Teachings in Scripture?

This is all we really need. And some interpretation of “porneia”.

Referring to the two or three sentences in the scripture is not helpful to this discussion particularly since everyone agrees remarriage is grave matter.

We believe in the tradition and magisterium as well and so looking at the scripture alone will only bring mass confusion as it has been handled differently throughout history. The scripture also is silent on the discipline regarding it. Jesus defines and sets the bar. He leaves to the church how to shepherd people to that bar.

The idea that the church has always treated marriage or divorce or remarriage as we do today is simply false.

The church ebbs and flows.

At one point priests were widely married, then the church made them be chaste, then the church overreacted and said that the layity could not go to mass if the priest was married, then they realized that was not a good discipline and rolled it back.

This is how discipline develops. Constantly checking in with the culture and assessing the outcomes it hopes to obtain and reevaluating as needed.

That is what is happening today in this issue.

 

[rcwitness]

Referring to the two or three sentences in the scripture is not helpful to this discussion particularly since everyone agrees remarriage is grave matter.

We believe in the tradition and magisterium as well and so looking at the scripture alone will only bring mass confusion as it has been handled differently throughout history.

The idea that the church has always treated marriage or divorce or remarriage as we do today is simply false.

The church ebbs and flows.

At one point priests were widely married, then the church made them be chaste, then the church overreacted and said that the latitude could not go to mass if the priest was married, then they realized that was not a good discipline and rolled it back.

This is how discipline develops. Constantly checking in with the culture and assessing the outcomes it hopes to obtain and reevaluating as needed.

That is what is happening today in this issue.

You are comparing Church discipline with Church law. They are different things. The Church has always upheld that once married, one cannot remarry, unless a spouse dies.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Do you notice how some do not refer to Jesus’ actual Teachings in Scripture?

This is all we really need. And some interpretation of “porneia”.

No. It isn’t.

 

[KSU]

Do you notice how some do not refer to Jesus’ actual Teachings in Scripture?

This is all we really need. And some interpretation of “porneia”.

Do you mean an interpretation of porneia in Matthew 19:3-9 other than " illicit or invalid."?

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church

The USCCB uses this: “9. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery” which means the same as " illicit or invalid.”

 

[rcwitness]

No. It isn’t.

Well, then that’s when it gets all messed up and lacking in understanding.

 

[pnewton]

Charity, of course, but not necessarily acceptance.

This is easily accommodated. Simply do not receive communion if you are affected by these new rules and do not accept them.

 

[KSU]

This is easily accommodated. Simply do not receive communion if you are affected by these new rules and do not accept them.

What new rules? I accept all the teaching of the Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you mean an interpretation of porneia in Matthew 19:3-9 other than " illicit or invalid."?

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church

The USCCB uses this: “9. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery” which means the same as " illicit or invalid.”

Of course that’s the passage.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You are comparing Church discipline with Church law. They are different things. The Church has always upheld that once married, one cannot remarry, unless a spouse dies.

No they are not different. They work together.

The church has not always taught that.

This article gives examples but I’d encourage a more detailed review on your part.

bible.org/seriespage/18-divorce-teachings-early-church

Post Augustine the church began to move in the direction you describe but did not fully make that move until St Thomas Aquinas.

 

[pnewton]

What new rules? I accept all the teaching of the Church.

I misspoke, though it is funny you went from “rules” to “teaching”. I think that is at the root of some disagreement. Let me rephrase by saying that if you do not agree with what your bishop, or your priest, is doing in regards to allowing someone to receive communion, and you are that person, you can simply choose to not receive. Amoris Laetitia compels no one to seek out pastoral counseling in regards to his marital status and communion. I someone thinks there should be no “internal forum”, he does not need to engage in such a process.

 

[kyrie03]

Can you please show me one piece of evidence from the first 1000 years of the church that demonstrates those who are remarried could not receive the Eucharist.

Also, I have posted twice a link to a first things article that describes in detail how FC and AL are not just reconciled but completely unified.

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

I think you do not understand clearly the difference between doctrine and discipline.

The link in First Things you sent me by John Crosby describes a tragic hypothetical situation to be sure. But to claim it shows how AL and FC are completely unified? Really?

Sonia, in the narrative, does NOT need the Eucharist to strengthen her during her trials……she needs Faith and Hope! We are all called to conform to God’s laws, trusting in His Divine Providence. Hard? For hypothetical Sonia, it’s incredibly difficult. But God promised * “My grace is sufficient” (2 Cor 12:9)*. Now the Church is attempting to find some wiggle room in laws that have guided and graced Her members for 2,000 years. (more on why there isn’t a precedent in Church history later)

Has poor Sonia never been told that God blesses those He loves most with the biggest crosses?

Has nobody counseled her that this life is fleeting, a blink of the eye?

Ponder what David- “a man after God’s own heart” according to how 1Sam 13 describes him- tells us in Psalm 103: “The life of mortals is like grass that flowers in the field, the wind blows, and they are seen no more. But the Love of the Lord is everlasting, for those who hold Him in fear. His righteousness extends to their children’s children, for those who keep His covenant and obey His precepts.”

How beautifully the Church used to console, counsel and encourage. She didn’t look to change laws; She used to believe it is more profitable to inspire hearts….hearts inflamed with love of God through joining their sacrifices with the Perfect Sacrifice!

And what an awesome reward God promises to those who follow HIs laws -blessing not only them, but His mercy extends to their children’s children!
*Fear of the Lord means loving Him so much that you dare not offend Him by breaking His laws

 

[kyrie03]

Can you please show me one piece of evidence from the first 1000 years of the church that demonstrates those who are remarried could not receive the Eucharist.

Gladly, just look at what is stated in FM: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” –reaffirming a practice means that is has, in the past, also been affirmed (by the Church).

Not only is Familiaris Consortio based on Church laws/disciplines that can be changed, it is based on Christ’s very words and the apostles teachings in Sacred Scripture. The understanding of words of Christ and the apostles regarding who could not partake of the Eucharist was the same for 2,000 years; it is only recently that they are being interpreted differently.

To justify giving Communion to D/R, Cardinal Kasper unfortunately misrepresented what was taught in early Church. Not according to me, but by “Catholic World Report” catholicworldreport.com/Item/3234/cardinal_kasper_and_the_church_fathers.aspx

I have cut and pasted some of analysis:

However, in invoking the early Christian sources, it appears that Kasper, despite acknowledging that the response of the early church Fathers was “not uniform” (p. 31), somewhat misrepresents the evidence, and does so in such a way as to advance his argument in a certain direction as though it were supported by the sources he cites.

Regarding Origin

But read in context the passage makes clear that Origen’s conviction was that such a custom is contrary to Scripture and the explicit words of the Lord. He referred to it in disapproval. The only concession that Origen in fact approves as scripturally permissible, and then only as directed “to those who do not wish to desire earnestly the greater gifts and become more blessed,” is remarriage for a widow or widower after the death of their first spouse.

Regarding Basil the Great

From these excerpts it can be seen that Basil in no way approves, let alone justifies, the practice of receiving remarried divorcees into communion. In fact, he commends a level of strictness towards remarried widows—“digamists”—that we today would quite rightly, I believe, judge as overly rigorous. He allows them Communion, but only after a period of penitential exclusion.

Regarding Gregory Nazienzen

As we found with both Origen and Basil, Gregory is hesitant to accept the remarriage of a widow or widower after the death of their spouse. In the main, the Word “deprecates” it; properly speaking it should be “rejected”; it is permissible only as an “indulgence.” Yet it is to be distinguished from trigamy or polygamy, which he regards as decisively offensive.

Council of Elvira (300)

“Let a baptised woman, who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another, be forbidden to do so; but if she has already married him, let her be excommunicate until the husband whom she left is dead, except in her own danger of death when the excommunication may be removed.”
although second unions after separation were permitted by the laws of the state, it is reaffirmed that they are forbidden for Christians by the word of Christ, and therefore render the remarried person excommunicate.

Council of Arles (314)

“With regard to those who discover their wives in adultery, and who, though in early manhood, are as Christians forbidden to remarry, it has seemed good [to this council] that as far as possible they should be advised during the lifetime of their wives, though adulteresses, not to marry others.” This Council urges the clergy to advise separated spouses “as far as possible” not to remarry.

You can read much more in report

If the Church wishes to change what some debate is a discipline and others argue is doctrine, She, at the very least, needs to base it on the truth.

 

[JimG]

The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and Amoris Laetitia

 

[irenaeus1]

And yet some did…and they were not in violation of any church law or norm until the 8th century. There was no scandal because it was common and accepted in that culture.

Can you cite a reference demonstrating that polygamous marriage by clergy was accepted by the Church?