Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[kyrie03]

Here’s a thought experiment: a lapsed Catholic woman divorces and then remarries a Protestant man who she has children with. The woman and the man both work, and together can just put food on the table for all people in the house. The lapsed Catholic woman then desires to come back to the Church but doesn’t know how. She decides to meet a priest, and after explaining her situation she is told by the priest that she can’t receive Communion unless she lives as brother and sister. She informs her husband, who has a different understanding of marriage. He feels she is unjustly trying to tear apart what he thinks is a legitimate marriage, and says he will divorce her if she refuses to engage in sexual relations. A divorce would likely have a devastating effect on the children, and by having to find new living arrangement and other complications brought on by the divorce they would often go hungry. Fearing this result, the woman continues to have relations…

I ask this rhetorically, but feel free to respond: is this Catholic woman’s culpability mitigated to the point where we could say that she does not have full consent? Does this open up the possibility for Communion for her?

Who are we to judge the woman? Only God can see the heart and judge appropriately. The action, though, is judged according to the unchangeable truths regarding marriage and the Eucharist that have consistently been taught as binding on all the faithful.
Familiaris Consortio explains:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

The hypothetical woman could probably find a pastor to tell her otherwise but that doesn’t change the truth of the teaching.

 

[josh987654321]

Priests often face such situations. I follow several priests bloggers, which are my sources of info on this. One of them wrote about a woman who showed up at his parish. She was in an irregular living situation. He welcomed her and her family but was clear about communion. She was outraged and told him she would find a more welcoming parish that would not make a big deal out of it. And she did. The priest did the right thing. He has lost several parishoners over the years because of hic orthodox faith and not pandering to secular ideas on abortion, SSM, and other hot topics. People get angry and find a more progressive parish, it’s just what it is. We need to be reminded of St John the Baptist and other saints who were martyred because they didn’t compromise on these matters. But sadly, many priests and bishops can’t handle that and go with the spirit of the times.

That’s so sad to read.

Reminds me of this passage -
Matthew 16:24-28:

The Cross and Self-Denial

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

In the same way, I think it could be said that those who try to save the Church (By trying to conform it and make it more appealing to audiences) will lose it, but those who give up the Church for Christ’s sake (The truth, whether it’s popular or not), will find it.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[kyrie03]

CrossofChrist -beautiful quote

“In everything, I want to base myself on the authority of the Church, and I want the whole world to know that I adhere to this authority alone.” --Blessed Antonio Rosmini, in response to 2 of his works being put on the Index. Apply this attitude to my posts if they fall short in some way.

Submission to lawful authority of Church is submission to ALL past doctrinal teachings, too. It is never easy, but we are assured that Christ’s grace is sufficient for us. His power is made strong in our weakness (2 Cor 12:9). And unless we take up our cross and follow Him, we can have no part with Him. (Matt 16:24)

 

[Chipper]

…
Lay people may not pass judgment not simply because they will never have all the facts…they have not the competence, according to several definitions of that word.

With all due respect Father.

Are we not constantly taught to discern right and wrong?

Are you saying that we cannot discern right and wrong without a theology degree?

 

[Chipper]

For the life of me, I don’t understand what the confusion is?!

It is the way Amoris Laetitia was written: Here are some of the problems as stated in Amoris Laetitia.

• “No one is condemned to hell [Heretical, Contrary to Scripture]
• The divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity,”
• “A Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action”
• “A person with full knowledge of a divine law CAN SIN by choosing to obey that law [the law of God]”
• One’s conscience can “truly judge” that sexual sins explicitly condemned by the Gospel “can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God”
• “Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it”
• “Absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy” - SUMMARY FROM LIFE SITE NEWS

From the Article: Full text of 45 theologians’ appeal to correct Amoris Laetitia’s errors revealed

In my opinion this is causing a lot of the emotions flying around. Cardinal Burke and friends concerning “Dubia” very politely questioned these statements.

 

[patricius79]

Not only is it affirming that those who have cura animarum are, as you say, to be pastoral…they also are the only ones who have governance.

Lay people may not pass judgment not simply because they will never have all the facts…they have not the competence, according to several definitions of that word.

In your view, Father, has the Pope definitely modified the discipline of the Church to allow priests to allow–according to their judgment–some civilly remarried people to receive Communion, without the firm intention to live in complete continence?

If so, could you quote from Amoris Laetitia on this point?

 

[bilop]

has the Pope definitely modified the discipline of the Church to allow priests to allow–according to their judgment–some civilly remarried people to receive Communion, without the firm intention to live in complete continence?

I can’t see where the Pope would get the power to do that. If the couple are not validly married, sexual realtions are a mortal sin. You can’t be absolved of a mortal sin if you intend to continue sinning. If they can’t be absolved, receiving Communion is an additional mortal sin.

This is all well established Church doctrine, going back to the very words of Jesus Christ. No Pope can change that. He lacks the authority, just like the Pope lacks the authority to ordain women to the Priesthood, or say the Eucharist can be confected with substances other than bread and wine.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

I can’t see where the Pope would get the power to do that. If the couple are not validly married, sexual realtions are a mortal sin. You can’t be absolved of a mortal sin if you intend to continue sinning. If they can’t be absolved, receiving Communion is an additional mortal sin.

From what I can tell (which isn’t much), the Pope said that a person might not be culpable–or not fully culpable–of the sins.

*Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it
is possible that in an objective situation of sin –
which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully
such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can
love and can also grow in the life of grace and
charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this
end.351 *
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

I have a number of questions: it is merely a matter of discipline (as opposed to doctrine) to allow someone who is habitually committing grave sins to receive Communion?

 

[bilop]

From what I can tell (which isn’t much), the Pope said that a person might not be culpable–or not fully culpable–of the sins, "ecause of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors".

But, then isn’t the job of the priest confessor to help such a person correctly form his conscience, which would then make him culpable for the sin?

Invincible ignorance holds for the unchurched. But once one is regularly attending Mass and getting counseling and going to confession, it’s no longer applicable.

God Bless

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It is the way Amoris Laetitia was written: Here are some of the problems as stated in Amoris Laetitia.

• “No one is condemned to hell [Heretical, Contrary to Scripture]
• The divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity,”
• “A Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action”
• “A person with full knowledge of a divine law CAN SIN by choosing to obey that law [the law of God]”
• One’s conscience can “truly judge” that sexual sins explicitly condemned by the Gospel “can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God”
• “Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it”
• “Absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy” - SUMMARY FROM LIFE SITE NEWS

From the Article: Full text of 45 theologians’ appeal to correct Amoris Laetitia’s errors revealed

In my opinion this is causing a lot of the emotions flying around. Cardinal Burke and friends concerning “Dubia” very politely questioned these statements.

I would actually like to see a link to what you post here. I take much of what is in Life Site News with a grain of salt, as it is usually not “news” but someone’s commentary on the news.

And the very first thing you list is a perfect example- no one on earth, not even the Holy Father, can say that someone is condemned to hell. We can say that they are a sinner, and have committed grave acts, but only God can do the actual condemning.

 

[bilop]

And the very first thing you list is a perfect example- no one on earth, not even the Holy Father, can say that someone is condemned to hell. We can say that they are a sinner, and have committed grave acts, but only God can do the actual condemning.

We can’t speak to any specific individual, but we know that there are people in Hell. The very words of the Gospel tell us so.

To deny that, to say hell is empty, i.e. to teach universal salvation, is heresy.

God Bless.

 

[patricius79]

But, then isn’t the job of the priest confessor to help such a person correctly form his conscience, which would then make him culpable for the sin?

Invincible ignorance holds for the unchurched. But once one is regularly attending Mass and getting counseling and going to confession, it’s no longer applicable.

God Bless

That was my thought, as well. Maybe the counter-argument is that some people- might take longer to really integrate what the priest is telling them about the evil of adulterous relations

 

[Oneofthewomen]

We can’t speak to any specific individual, but we know that there are people in Hell. The very words of the Gospel tell us so.

To deny that, to say hell is empty, i.e. to teach universal salvation, is heresy.

God Bless.

I am not denying hell at all.

The quoted statement was AL says “No one is condemned to hell”.

Well, that is not the job of any human being, even the Holy Father. That is not denying its existence, it is saying that no one on EARTH can say who is there or not.

I have a funny feeling that if/when some people here at CAF make it to heaven, they are going to be very surprised to see who else did too!

 

[bilop]

I am not denying hell at all.

The quoted statement was AL says “No one is condemned to hell”.

Well, that is not the job of any human being, even the Holy Father. That is not denying its existence, it is saying that no one on EARTH can say who is there or not.

I have a funny feeling that if/when some people here at CAF make it to heaven, they are going to be very surprised to see who else did too!

I didn’t mean to say you were claiming such a thing.

I was just saying that the phrase “no one is condemned to Hell” could be taken to mean hell is empty, which is heresy. Or, it could simply mean that people condemn themsleves to Hell, they are not condemned by God or anyone else, which is perfectly sound teaching.

I’m sure we’ll all be shocked by how many “nice” and “good” people are in hell, and how many open sinners managed to repent before the end.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

But, then isn’t the job of the priest confessor to help such a person correctly form his conscience, which would then make him culpable for the sin?

Invincible ignorance holds for the unchurched. But once one is regularly attending Mass and getting counseling and going to confession, it’s no longer applicable.

God Bless

Just another thought on this to situate this issue in the broader context of lukewamness.

And I’m not saying I think that persons living in adultery should be allowed to receive Communion.

And I’m not wanting to be off topic. But we are already tacitly approving of countless people living in sin by regularly practicing contraception, and allowing them to receive Communion without confessing (very few churchgoers confess their sins) and without having any intention of stopping their contraception.

Most priests seem to say nothing about this.

If they did start preaching the truth about this, it would take people time to integrate the truth of this.

 

[JimG]

Just another thought on this to situate this issue in the broader context of lukewamness.

And I’m not saying I think that persons living in adultery should be allowed to receive Communion.

And I’m not wanting to be off topic. But we are already tacitly approving of countless people living in sin by regularly practicing contraception, and allowing them to receive Communion without confessing (very few churchgoers confess their sins) and without having any intention of stopping their contraception.

Most priests seem to say nothing about this.

If they did start preaching the truth about this, it would take people time to integrate the truth of this.

I don’t know to what extent it is true that people are receiving communion without having confessed their mortal sins, but it is a fair point. Perhaps priests should give an occasional homily discussing when not to receive communion. It is a requirement to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, but not a requirement to receive communion at every Mass.

In the case of those living in invalid marriages, I knew of at least one relative who was quite active in her parish, attended Mass every Sunday, was on good terms with her pastor, but did not receive communion for decades precisely because of her marital situation.

 

[patricius79]

I don’t know to what extent it is true that people are receiving communion without having confessed their mortal sins, but it is a fair point. Perhaps priests should give an occasional homily discussing when not to receive communion. It is a requirement to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, but not a requirement to receive communion at every Mass.

In the case of those living in invalid marriages, I knew of at least one relative who was quite active in her parish, attended Mass every Sunday, was on good terms with her pastor, but did not receive communion for decades precisely because of her marital situation.

I agree that priests need to preach about when not to receive Communion. I’m home-bound, but my impression from when I have been able to attend Mass, and from talking to those who do attend Mass, is that priests rarely address this, or the major moral crises in the Church, including contraception, pornography, adultery (including civil remarriage), etc.

Maybe many Catholics are so poorly formed in the faith, and so under the influence of the world, that they–due to the conditioning the Pope refers to in Amoris Laetitia–are not in a state of mortal sin, even though they regularly practice grave immorality.

Is that possible?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I agree that priests need to preach about when not to receive Communion. I’m home-bound, but my impression from when I have been able to attend Mass, and from talking to those who do attend Mass, is that priests rarely address this, or the major moral crises in the Church, including contraception, pornography, adultery (including civil remarriage), etc.

Maybe many Catholics are so poorly formed in the faith, and so under the influence of the world, that they–due to the conditioning the Pope refers to in Amoris Laetitia–are not in a state of mortal sin, even though they regularly practice grave immorality.

Is that possible?

Of course it is possible. For a sin to be “mortal” it must meet all 3 of these criteria-

1. must be grave matter
2. I must know it’s grave matter
3. I must choose to do it anyway
   If it does not, then no “mortal sin” is committed.

As you say, catechesis is not always the best. I am teaching Confirmation prep to a group of 9th graders. In my diocese, you must be enrolled in Faith Formation for at least 1 year prior to beginning a Sacramental prep program. Most of my kids have gone through 7-8 years of FF. We have a very good program, and a very dedicated Pastor and DRE, but if PARENTS do not do their part, the kids are lost. And sadly, many parents do not see FF as important, or not as important as sports and other extra-curricular. Then they are the ones who complain the loudest when their young adults leave the Church.

We really need to stop blaming the “Church” and start putting the blame back on ourselves, for not doing what we promised when we Baptized our children.

 

[bilop]

I agree that priests need to preach about when not to receive Communion. I’m home-bound, but my impression from when I have been able to attend Mass, and from talking to those who do attend Mass, is that priests rarely address this, or the major moral crises in the Church, including contraception, pornography, adultery (including civil remarriage), etc.

Maybe many Catholics are so poorly formed in the faith, and so under the influence of the world, that they–due to the conditioning the Pope refers to in Amoris Laetitia–are not in a state of mortal sin, even though they regularly practice grave immorality.

Is that possible?

It’s hard to believe that people who actually attend Mass are ignorant of what the Church teaches on contraception and divorce. The media makes sure to regularly pillory the Church on those issues.

Choosing not to accept the Church’s clear teaching isn’t the same as not knowing.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

It’s hard to believe that people who actually attend Mass are ignorant of what the Church teaches on contraception and divorce.

I’m not sure this is entirely true, if many priests do not explain the requirements for receiving Communion, or the authority of the Church on faith and morals, or the evil of contraception and irregular marriages (or of obstinate doubt/heresy). They may know that the Church teaches that these things are wrong, but if priests aren’t preaching it, maybe they are not understanding…?

What I would like the Pope to emphasize–instead of relaxing the requirements for receiving Communion–is proper faith formation, including catechesis from the pulpit.