Pope Francis' in-flight interview from Lesbos to Rome [addresses Amoris Laetitia & Schonborn]

[Brendan_64]

Priest dicerned annulments!? No need for tribunals now!

I’m not arguing for that at all, I’m just trying to make sense of what is written in paragraph 305 of Amoris Laetitia. My understanding is that an annulment requires some cooperation from the other partner, if this is being withheld then that could jeopardise even an apparently obvious case and result in a person being ‘trapped’ in a situation, despite the unlikelihood that they were indeed validly married in the first union. I’m just trying to see what could be meant by paragraph 305 (with accompanying footnote 351) that doesn’t put pastoral practice at odds with established Church teaching (as I do not think Pope Francis would intentionally do that).

 

[dans0622]

… My understanding is that an annulment requires some cooperation from the other partner, if this is being withheld then that could jeopardise even an apparently obvious case and result in a person being ‘trapped’ in a situation, despite the unlikelihood that they were indeed validly married in the first union. …

Hello,

No cooperation is required, generally speaking.

The nature of the particular case–and the allegations made by the Petitioner–might make the other Party’s participation a practical necessity but, if it is true that the case is “obvious”, then no, nothing is required from the other Party.

Given the recent procedural changes introduced by Pope Francis, the non-participation of the other Party is even less impactful.

Dan

 

[Brendan_64]

Hello,

No cooperation is required, generally speaking.

The nature of the particular case–and the allegations made by the Petitioner–might make the other Party’s participation a practical necessity but, if it is true that the case is “obvious”, then no, nothing is required from the other Party.

Given the recent procedural changes introduced by Pope Francis, the non-participation of the other Party is even less impactful.

Dan

Perhaps the paragraph in AL is intended towards persons in the process of an annulment which hasn’t quite been finalised, or that has unduly been held up due to factors outside their control? Or perhaps someone who, due to psychological factors, cannot go through the annulment process (perhaps an abused woman who simply cannot face it, or someone in real fear of family repercussions from a broken arranged/forced marriage) even though the circumstances around the first union point strongly towards invalidity. These would represent extreme, exceptional cases. I don’t see how it could apply to someone in a second union where there first marriage was actually valid.

I think that the Holy Father is not ‘opening the door’, but rather saying that things are not always 100% clear cut and that there may be rare, extreme cases where the confines of the annulment process are very difficult (perhaps almost practically impossible) to apply and that we should not simply freeze out such people for the sake of the law? I think we really are talking about ‘in extremis’ cases.

 

[dans0622]

Perhaps the paragraph in AL is intended towards persons in the process of an annulment which hasn’t quite been finalised, or that has unduly been held up due to factors outside their control? I don’t see how it could apply to someone in a second union where there first marriage was actually valid.

A scenario which might have some relevance to that part of the Exhortation is when the Catholic party is civilly married to someone who was married before. The other Party has no willingness to have the “first marriage” examined by the Church. The Catholic Party is unable to force the issue and so it remains an objective obstacle…

Dan

 

[Brendan_64]

A scenario which might have some relevance to that part of the Exhortation is when the Catholic party is civilly married to someone who was married before. The other Party has no willingness to have the “first marriage” examined by the Church. The Catholic Party is unable to force the issue and so it remains an objective obstacle.

Good point.

I do think that the two extremes of view ranging from the “Never, never, never, under any circumstances” (a point of view with which I have a lot of sympathy for) to the “Open the gates and welcome all to Communion”, are missing what the Holy Father is trying to do here. I think he is just saying that sometimes the law is actually inadequate in terms of applying Church teaching in some very rare and extreme circumstances.

 

[GodsGrace154]

The encyclical is as a result of the synods. The synods were not the “Synods on whether divorced and remarried people can take Communion”, the encyclical is not the “Encyclical on whether divorced and remarried people can take Communion”.

Your statement suggests that the sole reason for writing the encyclical was to determine whether the divorced and remarried can receive Communion and that if nothing has chnaged in this regard then there would be not encyclical.

This encyclical is about 250 pages long and very little of this is devoted to divorce and remarriage, and even less about whether they can or cannot receive Communion. Are you saying that the whole purpose of the encyclical is bound up in a four sentences and one footnote? Why bother with a 250 page encyclical discussing a whole range of other issues if the whole purpose of it lies within a few lines in a paragraph?

Why did I give the above impression?
I’m speaking about persons who are in the D & R situation who have been attending Mass for years and finally were waiting for the above decision.

About 18 months ago, as you may well know, questionnaires went out to certain people within the church asking opinions about different matters and also a statement, if one desired to make an idea known.

You cannot deny that THIS IS the most important decision that has been awaited.
Also, it was supposed to put to rest whether or not the church has changed a very important doctrine - showing that doctrine CAN be changed, something many deny.
Many want NO CHANGE. Many want change. Amoris Laetitia makes no one happy and makes no one upset.

I do wish Pope Francis were more precise in his wording. However, I can pretty safely say that change is here.

But, the church moves so slowly, who will even notice? Vatican II took 50 years to become active in spirit.

GG

 

[OraLabora]

Good point.

I do think that the two extremes of view ranging from the “Never, never, never, under any circumstances” (a point of view with which I have a lot of sympathy for) to the “Open the gates and welcome all to Communion”, are missing what the Holy Father is trying to do here. I think he is just saying that sometimes the law is actually inadequate in terms of applying Church teaching in some very rare and extreme circumstances.

Bingo he specifically said as much in chapter 304:

304…It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.348

And it is precisely what I have been trying to say. Indeed there is a wide gulf between “never” and “everyone”. And there is no doubt that some pastors will err on either side (though I think it’s preferable to err on the side of mercy). But I do think the exhortation makes it absolutely clear that “never” no longer applies.

 

[Brendan_64]

Why did I give the above impression?

Here:

This is why each case has to be taken on its own merits.Two living as brother/sister have ALWAYS been allowed ro receive Communion, so
dmar198 is wrong about this. ** There would have had to be no new encyclical was this the case**.

You cannot deny that THIS IS the most important decision that has been awaited.

It is not the most important decision. It was not the focus of the Synods, it was not the focus of the post-synodial Apostolic Exhortation. If it was the most important thing, then surely the synods and the Apostolic exhortation would have reflected this? They did nott.

Also, it was supposed to put to rest whether or not the church has changed a very important doctrine - showing that doctrine CAN be changed

Doctrine has not been changed. If doctrine had been changed then it would have been made clear. Change in Church doctrine is not implemented by the inclusion of footnotes that can be read in several different ways.

However, I can pretty safely say that change is here.

Hiding in the footnote? Hardly.

But, the church moves so slowly, who will even notice? Vatican II took 50 years to become active in spirit.

Vatican II was a series of 16 documents that were produced and signed. Nowhere in Vatican II is there any reference to some ‘active in the spirit’ thingy. That’s another case of reading into documents things that the documents don’t actually say (a bit like reding doctrinal change in Amoris Laetitia.

 

[Brendan_64]

Bingo he specifically said as much in chapter 304:

And it is precisely what I have been trying to say. Indeed there is a wide gulf between “never” and “everyone”. And there is no doubt that some pastors will err on either side (though I think it’s preferable to err on the side of mercy). But I do think the exhortation makes it absolutely clear that “never” no longer applies.

I think that ‘erring on the side of mercy’ is extremely dangerous. That would endanger the values Pope Francis refers to in paragraph 304. To allow someone Communion when they are in a state of mortal sin is not merciful, by any means. This is tantamount to facilitating them to eat and drink judgement on themselves. That is not mercy at all, the implications are dreadful.

And as to the “never” no longer applying, this hasn’t actually changed. AL is saying that things haven’t changed for divorced and remarried couples, but just a recognition that in some rare circumstances it may be possible (in exceptional circumstances) that some people who appear to have been married before may not actually have been married before. Pope John Paul II was absolutely right in Familiaris Consortion, this has not changed, “never” still applies. Doctrine and pastoral practice cannot contradict each other, pastoral practice is doctrine lived out reality.

 

[JimG]

The more I read, the more ambiguity I encounter. I read Deacon Jim Russell’s commentary here. He seems to think that there is essentially no change.

And Mondica Migliorno Miller’s commentary here. She says that “at least a whisper of Kasper’s subjectivist “internal forum” can be heard here.” And she uses the phrase “studied ambiguity” with respect to Chapter 8.

But most Catholics won’t read either the commentaries or the exhortation. They will assume that they can receive communion if their conscience is clear, as determined by themselves and their confessor.

What it means in practice, I suspect, is that whether or not the divorced and remarried with no annulment can receive communion, will be solely at the discretion of individual priests, and neither their bishops nor the tribunals will have any thing to say about it.

Studied ambiguity, indeed.

 

[OraLabora]

This is tantamount to facilitating them to eat and drink judgement on themselves. That is not mercy at all, the implications are dreadful.

I don’t think so. If they receive communion on the basis of ill advice from the one that they are supposed to trust, then the guilt isn’t imputable to the couple but to the pastor.

And if the pastor erred not out of malicious intent but because if a sincere desire to advise correctly but misunderstands where to draw the line, then surely his guilt is mitigated as well.

What you wrote above implies that God has no mercy whatsoever. We simply cannot put God into that kind of a box. If someone accidentally walks on a dropped consecrated host because he or she didn’t see it, do you really think that this would bring down the full wrath of God on the person who didn’t see the dropped host on the floor?

 

[pnewton]

I think that ‘erring on the side of mercy’ is extremely dangerous. That would endanger the values Pope Francis refers to in paragraph 304. To allow someone Communion when they are in a state of mortal sin is not merciful, by any means. This is tantamount to facilitating them to eat and drink judgement on themselves.

If the context of this Scripture is given, it is not drinking judgmnet.

*Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.A person should examine himself,*** and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. *

This is why the process of self-examination is so important. One does not “accidently” enter damnation.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think so. If they receive communion on the basis of ill advice from the one that they are supposed to trust, then the guilt isn’t imputable to the couple but to the pastor.

You are correct, but likewise, if they receive correct advice, they are to cease, else the guilt IS imputed.

And if the pastor erred not out of malicious intent but because if a sincere desire to advise correctly but misunderstands where to draw the line, then surely his guilt is mitigated as well.

Likewise, if the pastor finds he is in error, you would agree that he has an obligation not to give such advice again, and to seek out, within ability, those to whom he has given such advice and correct it.

What you wrote above implies that God has no mercy whatsoever.

I fail to see that. Mercy accompanies a repentance and a purpose of amendment not to commit the sin again.

 

[OraLabora]

You are correct, but likewise, if they receive correct advice, they are to cease, else the guilt IS imputed.

Yes, unless it is an matter of prudential judgement.

Likewise, if the pastor finds he is in error, you would agree that he has an obligation not to give such advice again, and to seek out, within ability, those to whom he has given such advice and correct it.

Yes, unless it is a matter of prudential judgement. And here I will agree with those who critique the Holy Father’s document: it is sufficiently vague that a well-intentioned pastor may very well inadvertently make the wrong judgement but find as many as he who also do so, and perhaps his own superior. That would suggest to me that a pastor who errs on the side of mercy due to lack of clarity, is not culpable, assuming he just doesn’t thumb his nose at the whole works and advises every D&R couple to receive communion but genuinely tries to adhere to what AL says and discern those particular difficult cases that AL tries to address. Drawing that line, based on how AL is written, does strike me as a prudential judgement in the absence of any specific guidelines. Moreover the Holy Father specifically stated that he could not write a set of hard-and-fast rules that would apply to all circumstances; pastors need to discern, and thus use their judgement.

I fail to see that. Mercy accompanies a repentance and a purpose of amendment not to commit the sin again.

My context was the response to the original statement that the couple who erroneously receive communion based on what is tantamount to bad advice (assuming the advice they received was, in fact, bad). The notion that God would damn such a couple implies that God is without mercy because He would be damning the non-culpable. I think we can agree that God does not do this.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, unless it is a matter of prudential judgement. And here I will agree with those who critique the Holy Father’s document: it is sufficiently vague that a well-intentioned pastor may very well inadvertently make the wrong judgement but find as many as he who also do so, and perhaps his own superior. That would suggest to me that a pastor who errs on the side of mercy due to lack of clarity, is not culpable, assuming he just doesn’t thumb his nose at the whole works and advises every D&R couple to receive communion but genuinely tries to adhere to what AL says and discern those particular difficult cases that AL tries to address. Drawing that line, based on how AL is written, does strike me as a prudential judgement in the absence of any specific guidelines. Moreover the Holy Father specifically stated that he could not write a set of hard-and-fast rules that would apply to all circumstances; pastors need to discern, and thus use their judgement…

The guidelines are actually quite specific, Familaris Consortio. That was the question that I specifically asked the Nuncio when we discussed this the night AL came out, that if Familaris Consortio was still the teaching of the Church. His response was that it was. Nor did anything in AL revoke anything in FC

 

[irenaeus1]

It should be clear from this papacy that Francis is no legal absolutist and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Amoris Laetitia does not promote legal absolutism.

He is an absolutist (hiding behind Church teachings; seeing things as black and white) when it comes to stating that same-sex unions can never be equated with marriage or that abortion can never be justified. He’s just not on the issue of adultery with respect to divorce and remarriage… for some reason, on this issue he is tentative.

 

[unafraid]

I am watching EWTN hosted by the histrionic and theatrical Raymond Arroyo. The cast is Robert Royal and Fr. G. Murray. They are trashing Pope Francis with unbridled zeal. They all seemed so supercilious and condescending.

I was made to feel ill, and frankly, this presentation was rebellious. I was, afterwards, appalled. Arroyo frames all things in his own likeness; not Gods. He, and his cronies, never fail to blast the Holy Father.

Pope Francis deserves all of our respect. That these right-wing polemicists still attack him with so much venom, is a scandal. Just despicable.

 

[irenaeus1]

It seems that many here are saying that it is extremely difficult to commit a sin, or in particular, a mortal sin. The bar is being set so high with regard to knowingly and willingly committing a sin so as to be nearly impossible to be guilty of a mortal sin. Anything short of perfect knowledge and understanding and a complete willingness to commit such an act mitigates the culpability to something more like a minor infraction. It’s as if we are not responsible for our actions because someone could always point to some mitigating circumstance so as to not impute any guilt at all. No mea culpa.

 

[irenaeus1]

I am watching EWTN hosted by the histrionic and theatrical Raymond Arroyo. The cast is Robert Royal and Fr. G. Murray. They are trashing Pope Francis with unbridled zeal. They all seemed so supercilious and condescending.

I was made to feel ill, and frankly, this presentation was rebellious. I was, afterwards, appalled. Arroyo frames all things in his own likeness; not Gods. He, and his cronies, never fail to blast the Holy Father.

Pope Francis deserves all of our respect. That these right-wing polemicists still attack him with so much venom, is a scandal. Just despicable.

Are you kidding? You can tell it pained them to be critical of what the Holy Father has said.

 

[pnewton]

It seems that many here are saying that it is extremely difficult to commit a sin, or in particular, a mortal sin… No mea culpa.

"Mea culpa applies to all sin, not just mortal sin. All sin is serious. But for full disclosure, I do believe mortal sin is not as common as most Catholics here. I also believe that all go to Hell because they choose that path, not because they did not understand. So on this issue, I am on the more liberal side. On the issue of venial sin, I am much more on the traditional side, and beleive it more serious a matter than most.