R
rcwitness
Guest
I believe that God gives signs, warnings, impulses, counsel, encouragement or visions to us. We are not absent of His Spirit urging us to obey His laws.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I do too, but not everyone’s conscience is formed the same. One thing I keep remembering is that even Christians outside of the Church, trying in every way to follow God, do not understand remarriage as the Church teaches. Therefore, many of the most Spirit-filled, holy, prayerful Christians, might see God’s will for them in a re-marriage. At one time, when the Catholic Church as the one major force in society, all would understand remarriage was sinful. Now, most all outside of faithful Catholics will fail to know this.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I don’t believe so. FamCons clearly stated the state and condition of irregular remarried is in objective contradiction of Church’s teaching on the Indissolubility of Marriage.
All the putatively remarried are for very identifiable and set reasons in a state of public contradiction that is not subject to change until they divorce and stop cohbaiting.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
As below. The divorced are also in a similar but less grave situation
**Since they are avoiding engaging in the sin of adultery by living as brother and sister, **
Are they? Scripture speaks of at least of two other forms of adultery…sex is but one of them.
Staying in a 2nd platonic marriage is still a form of faithlessness and adultery. Not as bad as doing both of course, but still grave.
[Obviously then, the problem is not that they are in any way in sin…
Yes they are, grave matter would be better. By refusing everyday to separate and remove the counterwitness the state becomes a form of choice.**
I
irenaeus1
Guest
One article I recently read states that the Buenos Aires bishops did not, in fact, teach what the headlines said that they had taught. The Argentine "bishops first speak about leading couples to live their whole lives in ‘the light of the Gospel.’ The guidelines explicitly state that, for many such couples, their path will not lead to reception of the sacraments. In cases where ‘both partners are Christians walking the path of faith,’ the Buenos Aires bishops state that they should follow the traditional teaching and refrain from conjugal relations if they wish to receive the sacraments."
Only then do the guidelines speak about the situation — presumably for couples where one party is not a Christian or is not practicing the faith — where abstaining from conjugal relations is “not feasible.” The situation foreseen here is apparently that of one party desiring such abstinence (like the Sonia example), but the other refusing and threatening dire consequences in the absence of conjugal life. The first party then agrees to sexual relations against his or her will, for example, to preserve the welfare of the children. This case could be treated in such a manner even before AL, according to application of the standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice.
Only then do the guidelines speak about the situation — presumably for couples where one party is not a Christian or is not practicing the faith — where abstaining from conjugal relations is “not feasible.” The situation foreseen here is apparently that of one party desiring such abstinence (like the Sonia example), but the other refusing and threatening dire consequences in the absence of conjugal life. The first party then agrees to sexual relations against his or her will, for example, to preserve the welfare of the children. This case could be treated in such a manner even before AL, according to application of the standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice.
K
KSU
Guest
Your last sentence should have been formulated as a question. By formulating it as you did, you seem to ignore the most crucial aspect of this thread–the 2000-year old, unchangeable teaching concerning what constitutes adultery by those who attempt remarriage, as Christ Himself, when tested, gave it to the Church in Matthew 19:3-11:
3
a Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4
- b He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5
c and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
7 - d They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”
8
He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9
e I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
10
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.
Have I misunderstood your point?
P
pnewton
Guest
Scandal does not always exist. For example, if a brother and sister lived under the same roof, would they be denied communion? So, if we take a man and woman in a parish that receive communion, how do we tell by the way they receive communion whether they are married, or not, living in one bed, or two, having sex, or not? If they are remarried, do you know which have had an annulment? It would seem that often the presumption of scandal is in direct contradiction to the Church’s teaching on rash judgment, which demands we always give the most favorable interpretation of another’s actions and words, not the least favorable.
Perhaps this was more an issue and remains an issue, in a non-mobile society, or a village setting. However, I can count on one hand the number of couples I could answer the above questions with the certainty of first-hand knowledge, and I live in my home town.
Perhaps this was more an issue and remains an issue, in a non-mobile society, or a village setting. However, I can count on one hand the number of couples I could answer the above questions with the certainty of first-hand knowledge, and I live in my home town.
R
Richca
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes I agree the theology of there being no personal sin but mere non culpable cooperation in the evil of one’s partner is well established.
But the issue of tradtional barring from Communion holds regardless. The innocent sexual partner is still barred. It’s not simply an issue of private sin but public sin. It’s a discipline, you have sex in a 2nd marriage and you are banned. Full stop.
However if the bishops, and Francis, allow the innocent party access to Communion…then this is very new (at least for the last 1000 years). It means a definite change, even if the theology hasn’t. One could argue it brings theology and practice into better alignment for the innocent party.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
Wow. Interesting situation. It sounds like Francis attempted to change something the college of bishops ruled against?
S
Spudbynight
Guest
I don’t believe a private letter from the Holy Father has any magisterial authority at all. It can be safely ignored by all Catholics. If the Holy Father wants to change a practice of the Church he is well aware of the mechanisms by which he can do this.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I don’t believe he attempted to speak ex-Cathedra. And it’s not a practice that was subject, but a law.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Irenaeus1 well summed up below this authors case.
He seems to want to show the Kasper proposal has not been accepted.
Which is true.
However it is equally true that the author accepts that current theology can well explain how a Catholic partner in an irregular marriage can choose to have sex without sinning because she is simply tolerating evil passively for the sake of the children.
He does accept, it seems, that AL in these very limited circumstances allows PPS to give them access to Communion.
So in fact the author must agree that even though there is no new theology…this is a new disciplinary regulation…whether it has been brought about by “stealth”? That is a somewhat gratuitous pejorative view of Pope Francis I suggest.
It is well within the Popes authority to change such regulations even if bishops disagree.
One man’s stealth is another man’s non confrontational insistence on regulative change.
The author presumes this only holds when one partner does not have the faith.
This indeed a presumption and an unjustified one.
The issue has not been explicitly clarified by Pope Francis but the whole context and tone suggests that would be wishful thinking. Some people similarly couldn’t accept AL was changing anything when it came out and they are clearly mistaken.
The same will likely happen on this point. The exception will be available I foresee even for marriages between the baptized should absence of sex be beyond the strength of either partner and so endanger the stable relationship.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
What do you mean?
Do you mean infallible authority? Of course not. Very little in Papal communication is infallible.
Do you mean his letter offers no insight into what AL means and how bishops around the world may correctly interpret it when implementing Diocesan Guidelines?
That would be culpably obtuse.
I suggest you would be playing with fire if you ignored your managers reprimand simply because he had the compassion and good sense to tell you personally rather than put it on record with form AC123
.Bishops remain free to stay with current practise…but those who wish to take Pope Francis’s lead now have legitimate freedom to do so and no Catholic has good grounds for “murmuring” against the Pope, or the bishops or the faithful who wish to take advantage of these new practises.
I personally rejoice in this new opportunity for assisting such struggling persons in irregular marriages.
P
pnewton
Guest
“Safely ignored”? I do not know why anyone would want to be deliberately ignorant of what the Pope says. Sure, it is addressed to someone other than us, but there is always benefit to knowledge.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
If we are indeed to take AL to be a proposal in a change in discipline of allowing the divorced and civilly remarried, albeit in certain limited cases, to receive Holy Communion – even if we understand the objective sinfulness of the situation yet take into account mitigating circumstances, how can this be deemed legitimate considering, besides Familiaris Consortio, the following:
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
“Basing herself on these two complementary principles “compassion and mercy” being the first, and “truth and consistency” being the other], the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.”
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
"At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as “***binding, cannot be modified because of different situations. ***”
“This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.”
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
“Basing herself on these two complementary principles “compassion and mercy” being the first, and “truth and consistency” being the other], the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.”
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
"At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as “***binding, cannot be modified because of different situations. ***”
“This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.”
- Status