Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion' [Phony news story ?]

[edwest2]

I am puzzled by the idea that the Holy Father is accused of saying things off the cuff that, for some, are just not binding unless carved in stone. The Bible tells us that those who are given a position to teach and guide the faithful will be held to a higher standard than some comment from some anonymous person. What? Are some people hoping the Pope will say the wrong thing?

Making assumptions is always a bad thing. As a professional who is often called upon to look up facts, I need at least three, sometimes more, credible sources of information. I’m not joking. If I’m not sure, I check my references. So I encourage everyone - no more assumptions. Please.

Best,
Ed

 

[JimG]

I don’t think anyone’s considering altering Church teaching on divorce. The thing it may be considering is lessening the power of the Church’s fallible ministers to separate a person from the love of Christ in the Eucharist. When the minister interprets the situation wrongly – suppose, by failing to grant an annulment that is valid – this causes harm. If the Church were to leave the decision as to whether to receive communion up to the remarried individual’s conscience, it would lessen this harm significantly.

Since the annulment is, in the imagined case, valid according to God’s law, there never was a first marriage, and the person is not committing adultery. However, according to the mistaken interpretation of a minister of the Church, the person is committing adultery. You do not need to say that “sin is not sin” to claim that such a person ought to be allowed to receive communion, if their conscience affirms that their first marriage is in fact invalid.

It depends. Leaving the decision up to the individual conscience might ‘lessen the harm’ in some cases. Or it might increase the harm, if the person’s conscience is wrong and the tribunal decision is right.

All the facts upon which an individual might base his or her conscience decision as to the nullity of a marriage should already have been placed in evidence for a tribunal to consider. Can we say that the individual conscience is always correct when it makes a decision different than the tribunal based on the same evidence?

In any case, this matter of permitting the use of conscience, I think, already exists; it is known as the internal forum. But it is not and should not be a routine matter.

 

[Brendan]

Yes I actually did. I was specific when I said infallible and there are only two teachings that fall under that classification. .

That statement is incredibly incorrect.

The Catholic Church has a very LARGE number of teachings that are infallibly taught. The majority of those fall under the infallibility of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

What the Church has always and universally taught.

What you are referring to is the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium, that includes declarations by the Ecumenical Councils, and binding Papal Decrees. Of those, the Ecumenical

Councils make up the majority of the Extraordinary declarations. The remaining two are the ones you speak of (Ex Cathedra), but those two only make up a small percentage of what the Church teaches infallibly.

I’d recommend that you read Lumen Gentium 25, and then pick of a copy of Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’. It describes each teaching of the Church and under what grounds it’s infallibility is derived from.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Hey McCartney, quick quiz: Who did Jesus spend most of his time attacking, the self-righteous or the sexual sinner?

Quick Quiz: What did Jesus tell the sexual sinner to do?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

If you can’t see what my point is, then, you “don’t have ears to hear”.

At any rate, God bless you!

How do you define self-righteous? Has anyone here claimed to be righteous? To not be a sinner? Is pointing out that something is sinful self-righteous? Not according to my dictionary. We all know that we are sinners. We all struggle with different sins. We all know that we need to go to confession when we have committed mortal sin before we receive the Eucharist. How does that make anyone self-righteous? How does pointing out that one cannot magically change a mortal sin into a non-sin by just saying it ain’t a sin no more being self-righteous?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Quick Quiz: What did Jesus tell the sexual sinner to do?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Sin no more, of course. And I haven’t suggested they should do otherwise.

I do agree with Pope Benedict, however, that some people in second marriages without annulments are not living in sin.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It depends. Leaving the decision up to the individual conscience might ‘lessen the harm’ in some cases. Or it might increase the harm, if the person’s conscience is wrong and the tribunal decision is right.

All the facts upon which an individual might base his or her conscience decision as to the nullity of a marriage should already have been placed in evidence for a tribunal to consider. Can we say that the individual conscience is always correct when it makes a decision different than the tribunal based on the same evidence?

Surely not. I don’t think most people have educated consciences, so I don’t think “following your conscience” is always the best advice, unless you first “educate your conscience” – for example, by talking to a large number of wise people who are not rebelling against the Church, about the particular decision you’re considering. But I do think that a hard and fast rule that does not leave any space for conscience is wrong. It presents a barrier to faith, not an invitation.

In any case, this matter of permitting the use of conscience, I think, already exists; it is known as the internal forum. But it is not and should not be a routine matter.

I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be a routine matter. I just visited a liberal Catholic site that went into great detail about how the internal forum permitted people to use birth control and not apply for annulments and basically proceed as if the Church didn’t exist. That sort of teaching is a complete perversion of the notion of conscience. Conscience is not a license for some sort of rugged individualism; it is a force that brings us closer and closer to the Church, even though in one or two particular decisions it might make us break ranks with a mistake that some minister of the Church makes.

 

[JimG]

Surely not. I don’t think most people have educated consciences, so I don’t think “following your conscience” is always the best advice, unless you first “educate your conscience” – for example, by talking to a large number of wise people who are not rebelling against the Church, about the particular decision you’re considering. But I do think that a hard and fast rule that does not leave any space for conscience is wrong. It presents a barrier to faith, not an invitation.

I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be a routine matter. I just visited a liberal Catholic site that went into great detail about how the internal forum permitted people to use birth control and not apply for annulments and basically proceed as if the Church didn’t exist. That sort of teaching is a complete perversion of the notion of conscience. Conscience is not a license for some sort of rugged individualism; it is a force that brings us closer and closer to the Church, even though in one or two particular decisions it might make us break ranks with a mistake that some minister of the Church makes.

But consider: conscience is a faculty of the intellect by which we make moral judgments. The reason that conscience must be informed and educated is that correct moral judgment has to be based on correct moral principles.

A person using his or her conscience to make a judgment on his own application for nullity is in the situation of an appellant acting as his own judge. There is a great deal of room for bias and undue influence.

And as far as I know, tribunals do not operate by the application of a ‘hard and fast rule.’ That’s why they try to develop the evidence applicable to each individual case. Tribunals know as well as anyone that every case is different.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But consider: conscience is a faculty of the intellect by which we make moral judgments. The reason that conscience must be informed and educated is that correct moral judgment has to be based on correct moral principles.

A person using his or her conscience to make a judgment on his own application for nullity is in the situation of an appellant acting as his own judge. There is a great deal of room for bias and undue influence.

That’s why I recommended “talking to a large number of wise people who are not rebelling against the Church”.

Basically, I don’t think any serious decision in the Christian life should be made on one’s own, and one shouldn’t seek biased advice by “leading witnesses” or only picking advisers that you think we agree with you.

 

[grandfather]

Look at Matthew 5.

According to your argument, we should say, apparently, of the man who curses at his brother and the serial killer, that both of them are “murderers”. We should call a person who curses a murderer. For that is the ONLY way we would be justified in calling the person who divorces and remarries an “adulterer”, since the murder passage in Matt 5 is parallel to the adultery passage.

So I ask you, grandfather: Do you think that when I yell at my son in rage I become a murderer?

No, but you have a very serious spiritual problem and should not be attempting to give anyone spiritual advice. You are doing great damage to your son. Stop doing it if you can.

Suppose that you were divorced childless, but have five children with your new wife. Do you think that the best procedure here is to “find forgiveness” by leaving your second wife – thereby abandoning your children – or do you think that this situation is truly complicated, and God has forgiveness for you apart from such a drastic action?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, but you have a very serious spiritual problem and should not be attempting to give anyone spiritual advice. You are doing great damage to your son. Stop doing it if you can.

Gee, I said I have yelled at my son in anger an you tell me I’m not qualified to give anyone spiritual advice? Apparently, you and all the holy ones aren’t capable of doing such a heinous deed?

I don’t understand. Be assured, however, that I know that my expressions of anger hurt my children, and I take that very seriously. I know that my anger is a serious transgression against God and my children, and I am doing everything I can to change. But I am a little puzzled as to who could possibly give spiritual advice, if it must be someone who never acts in anger. The naturally sanguine? The sinless?

The number of children one might have with another person who is not one’s wife does not make a lawful marriage. Suppose I had five children with both. I encountered a Catholic couple, both converts, who married before conversion. Both had four children in previous marriages. They applied for annulments in RCIA. One was granted and the other denied. They had all eight in their home. They chose to live as brother and sister. The sanctity in this Catholic home was so powerful you could feel it when you walked in the door. The kids were all radiant happy. It was a very powerful witness.

That is a beautiful witness, absolutely.

Maybe it might be helpful to summarize the dogma of papal infallibility. We do not believe the pope is infallible in everything he says. Popes have said and done many boneheaded things. There are very very few dogmas created through the means of infallible statements by popes. For a new dogma to be created the pope must be speaking ex cathedra, from the seat of Peter. JPII did this when he declared the Church has no power to ordain women priests, although certain factions deny it met criteria to be an ex cathedra papal pronouncement.

Every other statement or writing by a pope is considered personal opinion and is not infallible.

Yes, I’m familiar with all this, and all the controversy about what qualifies as infallible. You were the one, however, that suggested this pope might change Church teachings on morality – which he is clearly capable of doing ex cathedra. So I think you have a circularity in your reasoning here, since you say that the pope is infallible – except when he isn’t, which is when you choose to call him apostate.

It appears we are headed for a period of doctrinal upheaval and confusion. We need strong leadership and a steady guiding hand, a clear voice that does not lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Sadly, it is lacking.

Benedict seems to have held a different opinion, since he was everything you are asking for, and he seems to have thought the Church needed another kind of shepherd. (It might be brought up, as well, that nearly everything Jesus himself said made the scholars confused. Francis is in good company – though obscurity, on its own, is certainly not a virtue.)

 

[Brendan]

Sin no more, of course. And I haven’t suggested they should do otherwise.

I do agree with Pope Benedict, however, that some people in second marriages without annulments are not living in sin.

Where did +Benedict actually make that claim? It was not in any of the quotes that you have provided so far

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Where did +Benedict actually make that claim? It was not in any of the quotes that you have provided so far

From catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504311.htm:

“I would say that a particularly painful situation is that of those who were married in the church, but were not really believers and did so just for tradition, and then finding themselves in a new, nonvalid marriage, convert, find the faith and feel excluded from the sacrament,” he said.

Pope Benedict said that when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he asked several bishops’ conferences and experts to study the problem, which in effect was “a sacrament celebrated without faith.”

He said he had thought that the church marriage could be considered invalid because the faith of the couple celebrating the sacrament was lacking.

It is very hard to read this description and think that Benedict considered such a person to be living in sin!

 

[Brendan]

It is very hard to read this description and think that Benedict considered such a person to be living in sin!

He asked that the CDF asked bishops to consider the issue,

Which is different from what you said

I do agree with Pope Benedict, however, that some people in second marriages without annulments are not living in sin.

Your statement indicates that the issue has already been decided, approved by Rome and that it retroactively applies.

Where do you even see that such a case would NOT have to go through the Tribunal process?

Or that it means that their current marriage is valid ( having been contracted outside of a Church marriage, which REQUIRES an declaration of nullity)

Sexual relations outside of a valid marriage is still sinful (fornication). Did Pope Benedict state that the Church’s view on fornication is also changing?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

He asked that the CDF asked bishops to consider the issue,

Which is different from what you said

I said that Pope Benedict said that SOME people in second marriages without annulments are not living in sin.

In the article, Benedict clearly contrasted God’s law with the Church’s law. Thus, when the article says that “he had thought that the church marriage could be considered invalid because the faith of the couple celebrating the sacrament was lacking”, the clear implication is that *he *thinks that – by God’s law – the first marriages were invalid.

I did not say that “the Church taught” such a thing. I was talking about the Pope’s personal opinions, which are (of course) fallible.

What’s clear from Benedict’s writing is that he does not think that all the Church’s judgments about validity and annulment are eternally binding or eternally true. They sometimes diverge from God’s law. In other words, he does not think that they are a case of the Church’s power to “bind and loose.”

 

[Brendan]

I said that Pope Benedict said that SOME people in second marriages without annulments are not living in sin.

But that is NOT what he said.

All he said is that their might be couples for whom their previous marriages MIGHT be invalid. And that the issue is being discussed by the bishops.

So lets take a look at the case of a couple whose previous marriages ARE, in fact, invalid.

Any ‘marrige’ they are currently in is also invalid, as they could not have married in the Church, nor received a dispensation for Lack of Form from the local bishop, due to the lack of a Declaration of Nullity.

Ergo, they couple are co-habituating without a valid marriage.

Do you really think that Pope Benedict was stating that cohabitation with a valid Marriage is anything less than sinful.

So I suppose it IS possible, if the couple in question are also living as brother and sister.

Is that your premise?

 

[grandfather]

Gee, I said I have yelled at my son in anger an you tell me I’m not qualified to give anyone spiritual advice? Apparently, you and all the holy ones aren’t capable of doing such a heinous deed?

I don’t understand. Be assured, however, that I know that my expressions of anger hurt my children, and I take that very seriously. I know that my anger is a serious transgression against God and my children, and I am doing everything I can to change. But I am a little puzzled as to who could possibly give spiritual advice, if it must be someone who never acts in anger. The naturally sanguine? The sinless?

That is a beautiful witness, absolutely.

Yes, I’m familiar with all this, and all the controversy about what qualifies as infallible. You were the one, however, that suggested this pope might change Church teachings on morality – which he is clearly capable of doing ex cathedra. So I think you have a circularity in your reasoning here, since you say that the pope is infallible – except when he isn’t, which is when you choose to call him apostate.

Benedict seems to have held a different opinion, since he was everything you are asking for, and he seems to have thought the Church needed another kind of shepherd. (It might be brought up, as well, that nearly everything Jesus himself said made the scholars confused. Francis is in good company – though obscurity, on its own, is certainly not a virtue.)

Isn’t it true that anger is not the only passion which gets out of your control?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Isn’t it true that anger is not the only passion which gets out of your control?

Gee, I didn’t know I was at the psychologist’s office. Thanks very much, but I don’t really go in for confessing sins to a person who has shown every sign of sitting in judgment over me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But that is NOT what he said.

All he said is that their might be couples for whom their previous marriages MIGHT be invalid. And that the issue is being discussed by the bishops.

The two articles I posted clearly indicate that he thought mistakes were made sometimes in the annulment process, and thus that sometimes people in second marriages were not committing mortal sin. If you read the articles carefully, that’s what he was saying. I don’t care to argue any more about that point.

Now what he did not explicitly say was that a person who was unjustly denied an annulment should receive communion. And I am not claiming that he did say that. So I hope we are in agreement about these facts?

So lets take a look at the case of a couple whose previous marriages ARE, in fact, invalid.

Any ‘marrige’ they are currently in is also invalid, as they could not have married in the Church, nor received a dispensation for Lack of Form from the local bishop, due to the lack of a Declaration of Nullity.

Ergo, they couple are co-habituating without a valid marriage.

Most marriages in Protestant churches are valid in the Catholic church, as are some marriages by justices of the peace.

 

[grandfather]

Gee, I didn’t know I was at the psychologist’s office. Thanks very much, but I don’t really go in for confessing sins to a person who has shown every sign of sitting in judgment over me.

The things a person says or writes and the tone of the expression reveal things about their hidden selves.

Whenever there is spiritual disorder in a soul it will manifest itself outwardly sooner or later in one way or another.

Conscience convicts us, but when there is disorder we try to still its voice.

Augustine wrote that the consequence of a disordered soul is a disordered soul. We have all known spiritual disorder of one form or another.

Jesus said whoever sins is a slave to sin. A slave does what his master commands. He can not make himself free. Am I enslaved today or free?

He called the Pharisees whited sepluchres. The outside was nice and shiny and the inside corrupt. They talked a good game about religion and thought about it all the time. He said of them that He knew the love of God was not in them. He condemned them for being hypocrites. He said to them that He knew they would die in their sins, meaning go to hell.

Sin is in us until it is not. When it is in us we try to tell ourselves we are ok. We try to justify ourselves. It doesn’t work.

What we all hope for one another is that we find mercy. We don’t want anyone to die in their sins.

Sacramental confession really works. The enemy tries to keep us from it. Experience tells me this is true, my own and what is evident in other sinners like me.