Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

Hey Jon, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this discussion. And lots of your points are good.

I think something here, in the bolde, is not quite right. I am trying to think of how to express it. I think it has to do with the fact that culpability is not so much the issue as you make it out to be. When someone is refraining (whether by the direction of clergy or self conscience) from Holy Communion, it is due to the current state a person is in. By that, I mean if they have done their duty, as much as they are aware and able, to Reconcile their lives to Christ’s commandments.

Obviously culpability has its place, but when someone is aware of their current condition of being at odds with the Laws of marriage, the whole aspect of ignorance is no longer relative in regards to receiving Eucharist.

You see, we can’t remain in a condition at odds with Jesus and receive the Sacrament that symbolizes complete obedience to Him. We FIRST examine ourselves and convert our hearts and lives and THEN receive His Thanksgiving offering.

The purpose of not receiving Communion is not as a punishment for sin, but a respect to not receive His gift in an unworthy manner. If we know that we are in an unlawful marriage, but remain in sexual relations within that marriage, we cannot receive His gift in a worthy manner.

Good insight.
Yes, there are at least two different arguments for justifying Pope Francis’s Communion innovations.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes this is the traditional argument that “now you know and so you are culpable moving forward”.

That seems fine in certain situations, “porn is sin stop looking at it. Now you know”.

But in others it is not so simple.

There are two lenses to look through as well. As a convert and RCIA leader, I look through the lens of converts more because that’s my experience. I think the issue may appear different for cradle Catholics.

For example, the lifelong Catholic that divorces his wife, enters a new marriage and then wants communion knowing the church’s teaching the whole time is in a completely different place than the person that remarried with his Protestant pastors counsel and blessing but only years later with a wife and family comes to the Catholic Church.

How can we tell this second person you are in mortal sin for the rest of your life because of something you did 20 years ago with absolutely zero knowledge and culpability?

It is cases more like the latter that cause me to want to bring out the fine brush of pastoral care and the internal forum as opposed to the broad brush of church law absolutes.

I use the example a lot of sterilization. I even called Tim staples on the radio with it once but have not had a good answer to how it is different.

If a Catholic man says, I know vasectomy is wrong but I don’t want kids. So he gets a vasectomy. He then changes his heart and confesses. We do not say he is in an ongoing state of contraception (not open to life) and thus a mortal sinner. Objectively he is. But we allow his forgiveness and return to the sacraments.

Pastors generally say if it can be reversed without too much expense and difficulty than do it, otherwise we just move on.

Why should remarriage be different? If it can be reversed without too much damage and difficulty then reverse it. If not, then we find another way for you to atone and show remorse and life change.

Which is why I think Pope Francis is saying the Confessional is open to some of them even though they do not intend to separate and maybe not even live as brother and sister.
It has become a situation that cannot reasonably be considered reversible in some cases due to the huge amount of damage that would be done compared to the alleged scandal of the ongoing objective disorder of remarriage. Just like your valid sterilisation example. There can be present a sincere and firm desire to change even though they, rightly so, also decide not to change.

Is this proportionalism? I do not think so, it is a wise pastoral judgement discerned by Peter. Standard moral theology doesn’t quite yet have easily understood principles to explain this…but they are rising to the surface due to the theological debates AL has ignited even between heavy weight theologians. This is exactly what Pope Francis foresees and is also how the Church’s best pastoral and theological explicitations have always been done. I would not look to Canon Lawyers to lead this resolution.
We just need to keep our nerve and things will eventually settle and reach the usual “homeostasis” of Catholic acceptability. There may be some casualties, there always are when tectonic shifts are afoot. That cannot be avoided.

 

[rcwitness]

For example, the lifelong Catholic that divorces his wife, enters a new marriage and then wants communion knowing the church’s teaching the whole time is in a completely different place than the person that remarried with his Protestant pastors counsel and blessing but only years later with a wife and family comes to the Catholic Church.

How can we tell this second person you are in mortal sin for the rest of your life because of something you did 20 years ago with absolutely zero knowledge and culpability?

This situation is about two non-Catholic marriages. The Catholic Church cannot necessarily hold one bound to one or the other, but accept the convert where they are. It’s a bit different than an actual Catholic Christian marriage. So while a protestant marriage is Sacramental, it does not carry the same laws. This is because those marriages believe from the outset that divorce is possible in cases of adultery or abuse or abandonment. The Catholic Sacrament never fell into that mentality.

It is cases more like the latter that cause me to want to bring out the fine brush of pastoral care and the internal forum as opposed to the broad brush of church law absolutes.

I think your concerns can be dealt with, when individual cases are opened up. The Protestant dilemma is definitely one, and the answer I gave above is my initial reaction to a general situation. I don’t claim that as an official stance, but I do recognize the dilemma.

If a Catholic man says, I know vasectomy is wrong but I don’t want kids. So he gets a vasectomy. He then changes his heart and confesses. We do not say he is in an ongoing state of contraception (not open to life) and thus a mortal sinner. Objectively he is. But we allow his forgiveness and return to the sacraments.

Pastors generally say if it can be reversed without too much expense and difficulty than do it, otherwise we just move on.

A surgery is quite different than a relationship. And even still, some who do have remorse for undergoing sterilization approach sex as though they were practicing NFP, with its controlled limitations.

Why should remarriage be different? If it can be reversed without too much damage and difficulty then reverse it. If not, then we find another way for you to atone and show remorse and life change.

I understand your arguements. I think the biggest really is the children in these new relationships.

This is why the real effort needs to be at the earlier stages of Christian formation. We need to guide and educate our young believers better. Why do we have such a large number of failed marriages among believers? This is causing a collapse in our world. We need to be stronger than this!

 

[Jon_S_1]

This situation is about two non-Catholic marriages. The Catholic Church cannot necessarily hold one bound to one or the other, but accept the convert where they are. It’s a bit different than an actual Catholic Christian marriage. So while a protestant marriage is Sacramental, it does not carry the same laws. This is because those marriages believe from the outset that divorce is possible in cases of adultery or abuse or abandonment. The Catholic Sacrament never fell into that mentality.

I think your concerns can be dealt with, when individual cases are opened up. The Protestant dilemma is definitely one, and the answer I gave above is my initial reaction to a general situation. I don’t claim that as an official stance, but I do recognize the dilemma.

A surgery is quite different than a relationship. And even still, some who do have remorse for undergoing sterilization approach sex as though they were practicing NFP, with its controlled limitations.

I understand your arguements. I think the biggest really is the children in these new relationships.

This is why the real effort needs to be at the earlier stages of Christian formation. We need to guide and educate our young believers better. Why do we have such a large number of failed marriages among believers? This is causing a collapse in our world. We need to be stronger than this!

 

[Richca]

First of all, FC does speak to the practice of the church. That is not in contention. I acknowledge that this is the practice for almost the last thousand years (certainly the last 500)

That does not mean this was the practice for 2000 years. It simply wasn’t.

 

[kyrie03]

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.

William Luck, author of article you linked, admits his bias against relying on Church’s interpretation of Scripture:

“Again, let me remind my reader that **in accord with the teachings of the Reformation, I do not consider tradition the equal of the **Scriptures.”

JUST because someone is Protestant doesn’t disqualify him from researching and coming to a correct interpretation. However, Mr. Luck in the article flatly rejects what the Catholic Magisterium determined regarding the writings of the Church Fathers, and as such, shouldn’t be trusted in his conclusions. He has an agenda and a predetermined bias. Why even link his article?

 

[Jon_S_1]

William Luck, author of article you linked, admits his bias against relying on Church’s interpretation of Scripture:
JUST because someone is Protestant doesn’t disqualify him from researching and coming to a correct interpretation. However, Mr. Luck in the article flatly rejects what the Catholic Magisterium determined regarding the writings of the Church Fathers, and as such, shouldn’t be trusted in his conclusions. He has an agenda and a predetermined bias. Why even link his article?

Only linked it as a jumping off point for people that were asking. Hard to link to books on the forum and not much on the web that I had available at least.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes this is the traditional argument that “now you know and so you are culpable moving forward”.

That seems fine in certain situations, “porn is sin stop looking at it. Now you know”.

But in others it is not so simple.

There are two lenses to look through as well. As a convert and RCIA leader, I look through the lens of converts more because that’s my experience. I think the issue may appear different for cradle Catholics.

For example, the lifelong Catholic that divorces his wife, enters a new marriage and then wants communion knowing the church’s teaching the whole time is in a completely different place than the person that remarried with his Protestant pastors counsel and blessing but only years later with a wife and family comes to the Catholic Church.

How can we tell this second person you are in mortal sin for the rest of your life because of something you did 20 years ago with absolutely zero knowledge and culpability?

It is cases more like the latter that cause me to want to bring out the fine brush of pastoral care and the internal forum as opposed to the broad brush of church law absolutes.

I use the example a lot of sterilization. I even called Tim staples on the radio with it once but have not had a good answer to how it is different.

If a Catholic man says, I know vasectomy is wrong but I don’t want kids. So he gets a vasectomy. He then changes his heart and confesses. We do not say he is in an ongoing state of contraception (not open to life) and thus a mortal sinner. Objectively he is. But we allow his forgiveness and return to the sacraments.

Pastors generally say if it can be reversed without too much expense and difficulty than do it, otherwise we just move on.

Why should remarriage be different? If it can be reversed without too much damage and difficulty then reverse it. If not, then we find another way for you to atone and show remorse and life change.

If a couple decides not to live as brother and sister, they are then deciding on each occasion to commit an act which is objectively mortally sinful.

The man with a vasectomy does not decide each day to be a vasectomies person, he simply is.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If a couple decides not to live as brother and sister, they are then deciding on each occasion to commit an act which is objectively mortally sinful.

The man with a vasectomy does not decide each day to be a vasectomies person, he simply is.

The remarried couple simply are.

You make a difference between the two based on what?

You say they are mortally sinful and yet you do not bother to apply any principles regarding culpability. Such principles are almost always applied to future acts even after knowledge is obtained.

Why not this act. Is it simple to stop having sex and/or divorce a woman you have 5 kids with and were civilly married to for 20 years?

Some on this forum seem to think such situations are simple, without distress or mitigating factors diminishing culpability.

why!!??

 

[St_Francis]

The remarried couple simply are.

You make a difference between the two based on what?

Since the couple can receive the Eucharist if they abstain from the marital act, it is clearly the act which is the sinful act. Since it is decided each time the act is engaged in, it differs from being in a condition in which one put oneself in the past.

You say they are mortally sinful

People are not mortally sinful; acts are. I said they are engaging in an act which is *objectively *mortally sinful.

and yet you do not bother to apply any principles regarding culpability.

No, because I am speaking in general terms, which is why I used the word objectively. Principles regarding culpability don’t apply generally and come into discussion only when discussing particular cases.

Such principles are almost always applied to future acts even after knowledge is obtained.

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

Why not this act?

The principles of culpability should be applied generally to all sins? Let’s see, an abortionist wants to be received into the Church, but his wife will take the children and leave him if his income drops, as it would if he stopped being an abortionist. Should he be allowed to receive?

Is it simple to stop having sex and/or divorce a woman you have 5 kids with and were civilly married to for 20 years?

Is it simple to lose your entire line of work, which also has a serious effect on the family, as religious figures from other communities do when they convert?

The R&D person can attend Mass, can make a Spiritual Communion, and can participate in activities. But in the same way that parents are warned not to feed infants honey or give minors aspirin, the Church has always warned not to give Communion to people who *objectively *are in a state of mortal sin.

Some on this forum seem to think such situations are simple, without distress or mitigating factors diminishing culpability.

Which is precisely why tribunals have been set up, to have people who are trained to sort through the complexities of individual circumstances.

why!!??

I think you are confusing discussion about general principles with particular circumstances.

 

[rcwitness]

The remarried couple simply are.

You make a difference between the two based on what?

You say they are mortally sinful and yet you do not bother to apply any principles regarding culpability. Such principles are almost always applied to future acts even after knowledge is obtained.

Why not this act. Is it simple to stop having sex and/or divorce a woman you have 5 kids with and were civilly married to for 20 years?

Some on this forum seem to think such situations are simple, without distress or mitigating factors diminishing culpability.

why!!??

I don’t recall “St Francis” explaining whether or not the couple in his scenerio went through the Tribunal or not. But we should assume they did, and we’re denied an annulment.

Under the circumstances of a couple being denied an annulment what do you think the couple must do to receive Communion in a worthy manner? Do you think they can take it upon themselves to decide that Jesus excuses them from obedience to the Tribunal? Or if they do, is it still merely venal sin?

 

[KSU]

Some on this forum seem to think such situations are simple, without distress or mitigating factors diminishing culpability.

**Jon, nobody here has been so heartless or mindless of the suffering involved. **

why!!??

As an RCIA leader you know that when educated Catholics echo what God Himself clearly tells us, as confirmed by the Magisterium, it is not heartless or mindless of the suffering involved. Your “why???” would be better applied to Catholics who know but don’t like the fact that the issue in this thread involves dogma-- unchangeable teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If a couple decides not to live as brother and sister, they are then deciding on each occasion to commit an act which is objectively mortally sinful.

The man with a vasectomy does not decide each day to be a vasectomies person, he simply is.

Not quite, a moral theologian would not say such is “committed” but rather “engaged”.
Committed means full culpability.

Also, it is not always clear whether the grave matter in question actually is adultery. Putative ly yes, but ultimately, if a decree of nullity is made, it will be a mistaken identification won’t it?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since the couple can receive the Eucharist if they abstain from the marital act, it is clearly the act which is the sinful act. Since it is decided each time the act is engaged in, it differs from being in a condition in which one put oneself in the past.

Francis you have a way to go to come up to speed on these sorts of threads.
You are quite mistaken.
Even platonic couples are still in a state of objective sin by the simple fact of the remarriage and cohabitation. They may only receive Communion anonymously. Hardly a resounding yes to their alleged purity. Your theological understanding given here is simply inadequate to the complexity of the issues.

 

[KSU]

September 22, 2016
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, has announced that Catholics who are divorced and remarried should not receive the Eucharist.

Writing in his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Olmsted said that the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia does not change the Church’s traditional teaching. On the contrary, he argued that the papal document is in keeping with the previous teachings of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI “which reaffirm the constant tradition of the Church.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29422

youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0

 

[rcwitness]

September 22, 2016
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, has announced that Catholics who are divorced and remarried should not receive the Eucharist.

Thanks. This is a relative explanation of the point in question:

Bishop Olmsted welcomed the emphasis by Pope Francis on the need to reach out to divorced and remarried couples, and “accompany” them in their effort to live in accordance with Christian principles. “Accompaniment is possible, and should be the case in our parishes,” the bishop wrote. “This does not, however, include receiving Holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried.”

Again, I recognize there are complex and difficult situations out there with some. And that the culpability varies among them. But I also don’t believe these Christians who divorced and remarried were guided by the Holy Spirit or their conscience. This has consequence. We cannot lead lives opposed to His ways and then expect the law of marriage to bend for us. There is always the higher law of Christ’s mercy and forgiveness. His mercy and justice are in harmony. Accepting His mercy means taking the narrow path, suffering with Him, hating our own lives, removing the hand or eye that causes us to fall, etc.

It’s not easy following the Lord. So much is demanded of us. But receiving His Eucharist is the sign of doing what He has commanded us to do. The Church is right to uphold the Tradition and law of marriage in this regard.

Romans 7
Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. …

1 Cor 7
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

 

[St_Francis]

Not quite, a moral theologian would not say such is “committed” but rather “engaged”.
Committed means full culpability.

Thanks for the correction and explanation. As more of an editor than moral theologian, I try to vary the words I use, but I see that that does not work here.

Also, it is not always clear whether the grave matter in question actually is adultery. Putative ly yes, but ultimately, if a decree of nullity is made, it will be a mistaken identification won’t it?

Is the word objective also the wrong word?

 

[St_Francis]

Francis you have a way to go to come up to speed on these sorts of threads.
You are quite mistaken.
Even platonic couples are still in a state of objective sin by the simple fact of the remarriage and cohabitation.

What sin are they objectively in a state of?

They may only receive Communion anonymously. Hardly a resounding yes to their alleged purity.

Since they are avoiding engaging in the sin of adultery by living as brother and sister, that is not what is keeping them from receiving publicly. Obviously then, the problem is not that they are in any way in sin, because that would require abstention from the sacraments, but that they are avoiding giving scandal.

Your theological understanding given here is simply inadequate to the complexity of the issues.

I was not trying to give a course on the entire issue, I was simply trying to explain one point of the matter in response to the question asked by another poster.

I realize that you and I disagree on this issue, and that is fine. The fact that you believe that I disagree with you because I lack knowledge does not mean that you need to be condescending. Just say what you have to say without the personal remarks, that way everyone can more easily learn from your comments.

 

[OraLabora]

What sin are they objectively in a state of?

Causing scandal.

 

[pnewton]

But I also don’t believe these Christians who divorced and remarried were guided by the Holy Spirit or their conscience.

That is a further judgment that we can make. It is judging not just the action, but the soul.