Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[patricius79]

Of course Pope Francis is keeping moral law. There is nothing immoral in the AL. Only implications of what is or isn’t insinuated or “written between the lines.” We must assume that the Pope was correct and that there isn’t something negative implied or “hidden” between the lines.

We should wait to pubically discuss this when this whole “fiasco” is settled. Not before.

We must be obedient to the Pope in matters of doctrine, moral teaching, and discipline. That doesn’t mean we can’t have questions as we try to understand his meaning. My understanding is that A.L. was written in response to the question of whether civilly remarried Catholics may receive Communion. If so, I don’t understand why the Pope wouldn’t have affirmed that they may not, unless they have Confessed their sin, with a firm intention to live in complete continence. Or if he did affirm this in the document, or in response to the many questions about it, then I would like to see that.

 

[patricius79]

In Archbishop’s Chaput’s implementing of A.L., he states:

Can the divorced and civilly-remarried receive the sacraments? As a general matter, baptized members of the Church are always in principle invited to the sacraments. The confessional’s doors are always open to the repentant and contrite of heart. What of Communion? Every Catholic, not only the divorced and civilly-remarried, must sacramentally confess all serious sins of which he or she is aware, with a firm purpose to change, before receiving the Eucharist. In some cases, the subjective responsibility of the person for a past action may be diminished. But the person must still repent and renounce the sin, with a firm purpose of amendment.
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Given the spiritual and moral crisis in the Church today, I think we need to be hearing this from the Pope, the Bishops, all the clergy, and the laity. If Pope Francis makes such a clear statement in A.L., I would like to see it.

 

[CrossofChrist]

General disclaimer: Before freaking out about what Amoris Laetitia did or did not say, please read it. Please remember that Pope Francis has said he is a son of the Church, and that Amoris Laetitia primarily is concerned with the crisis of the family as a whole, not this relatively minute issue of the divorced/remarried, which is far less simplistic than is often made out.

Lest anyone think the Pope is encouraging dissent from Church teaching (how people think this is real is quite saddening), he doesn’t mince words in the exhortation, either (from AL 297):

Naturally, if someone
flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something
other than what the Church teaches, he or she
can in no way presume to teach or preach to
others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such
a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel
message and its call to conversion.

 

[patricius79]

General disclaimer: Before freaking out about what Amoris Laetitia did or did not say, please read it. Please remember that Pope Francis has said he is a son of the Church, and that Amoris Laetitia primarily is concerned with the crisis of the family as a whole, not this relatively minute issue of the divorced/remarried, which is far less simplistic than is often made out.

Lest anyone think the Pope is encouraging dissent from Church teaching (how people think this is real is quite saddening), he doesn’t mince words in the exhortation, either (from AL 297):

Naturally, if someone
flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something
other than what the Church teaches, he or she
can in no way presume to teach or preach to
others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such
a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel
message and its call to conversion.

I like what he says about “objective sin”. I’m wondering about the use of the word “ideal” here. One of the things I’m concerned about is the idea of many that intending to keep the Commandments is an “ideal”. But really isn’t this intention a minimal requirement which is always necessary for receiving Communion? If so, and in the moral and spiritual crisis which families are in, are we often hearing this from the Holy Father and our pastors?

I’m still concerned with understanding this part:
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 Discernment must help to find possible
ways of responding to God and growing in the
midst of limits. By thinking that everything is
black and white, we sometimes close off the way
of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of
sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember
that “a small step, in the midst of great
human limitations, can be more pleasing to God
than a life which appears outwardly in order,
but moves through the day without confronting
great difficulties”.352 The practical pastoral care
of ministers and of communities must not fail to
embrace this reality.
306. In every situation, when dealing with
those who have difficulties in living God’s law
to the full, the invitation to pursue the via caritatis
must be clearly heard. Fraternal charity is the
351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the
sacraments. *

What does the Pope mean when he says that some persons in an objective state of sin may receive the Sacraments?

 

[patricius79]

What does the Pope mean when he says that some persons in an objective state of sin may receive the Sacraments?

I mean “objective situation of sin”. I’m wondering what does it mean that some persons in an “objective situation of sin” may receive the help of the Sacraments?

Btw, in my last post, the red part at the end, numbered 351, is a footnote to the sentence I have in red at the beginning of the quotation.

Also, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t claim to be able to read A.L. in full. I’m unable to do so. That’s why I’m asking questions of those that are more competent and are able to read it and explain what the Pope means.

 

[Thomas_White]

What does the Pope mean when he says that some persons in an objective state of sin may receive the Sacraments?

This means that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not received an annulment is in an ‘objective state of sin’ in the eyes of the Church. It is also the reasonable perception of those who know of the situation. Though I don’t know the pope has said as much, that such a person may not ‘be subjectively culpable’ could mean, for example, that through the internal forum they have concluded that their first marriage was not valid.

Without doubt, this is true in many instances.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I mean “objective situation of sin”. I’m wondering what does it mean that some persons in an “objective situation of sin” may receive the help of the Sacraments?

Btw, in my last post, the red part at the end, numbered 351, is a footnote to the sentence I have in red at the beginning of the quotation.

Also, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t claim to be able to read A.L. in full. I’m unable to do so. That’s why I’m asking questions of those that are more competent and are able to read it and explain what the Pope means.

I respect that you can’t read AL in full. I’m sure you aren’t alone; my critique goes out to those–whoever they may be, since this is after all a public board that anyone can read, member or not–who themselves find ways to critique the Holy Father and the Exhortation, doing more than just asking questions.

As to “objective situation of sin”, the closest thing I can find to a definition is from the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts saying “grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability”.

Someone can do acts that are objectively wrong and still receive Communion if the requirements for mortal sin of full knowledge/deliberate consent are not met. I think what Pope Francis says in AL would be an extension of that or those in irregular situations.

I believe Pope John Paul II made it possible for us to be having this discussion about those in irregular situations, especially the divorced/remarried, since in Familiaris Consortio he allowed divorced/remarried who aren’t having sexual relations to receive Communion, so long as they avoided scandal. But being in a situation where one is divorced/remarried, even if you aren’t having relations, isn’t that an objective situation of sin? I’m just a layperson, so perhaps someone more educated or in a position of authority can correct me, but it seems to me like it would be.

 

[Thomas_White]

But being in a situation where one is divorced/remarried, even if you aren’t having relations, isn’t that an objective situation of sin?

Yes.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I respect that you can’t read AL in full. I’m sure you aren’t alone; my critique goes out to those–whoever they may be, since this is after all a public board that anyone can read, member or not–who themselves find ways to critique the Holy Father and the Exhortation, doing more than just asking questions.

As to “objective situation of sin”, the closest thing I can find to a definition is from the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts saying “grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability”.

Someone can do acts that are objectively wrong and still receive Communion if the requirements for mortal sin of full knowledge/deliberate consent are not met. I think what Pope Francis says in AL would be an extension of that for those in irregular situations.

I believe Pope John Paul II made it possible for us to be having this discussion about those in irregular situations, especially the divorced/remarried, since in Familiaris Consortio he allowed divorced/remarried who aren’t having sexual relations to receive Communion, so long as they avoided scandal. But being in a situation where one is divorced/remarried, even if you aren’t having relations, isn’t that an objective situation of sin? I’m just a layperson, so perhaps someone more educated or in a position of authority can correct me, but it seems to me like it would be.

Slight correction

 

[pnewton]

My understanding is that A.L. was written in response to the question of whether civilly remarried Catholics may receive Communion. If so, I don’t understand why the Pope wouldn’t have affirmed that they may not…

You say, “If so…”, but in fact, it is not so. The perception that Amoris Laetitia was written to clarity this one question is a false perception. The document was the Pope’s exhortation on the family, based on what the Synod of the family produced. Only a small percentage dealt with irregular situations and only a part of that mentioned the problem of civilly remarried Catholics. The part having to do with ministering to this population was directed to the priests and the bishops. He gave general instructions on how to deal with them and what to avoid. Now, it is up to bishops to implement guidelines for the priests and the priests to roll up their sleeves and put it to practice on a case by case basis.

 

[Thomas_White]

You say, “If so…”, but in fact, it is not so. The perception that Amoris Laetitia was written to clarity this one question is a false perception. The document was the Pope’s exhortation on the family, based on what the Synod of the family produced. Only a small percentage dealt with irregular situations and only a part of that mentioned the problem of civilly remarried Catholics. The part having to do with ministering to this population was directed to the priests and the bishops. He gave general instructions on how to deal with them and what to avoid. Now, it is up to bishops to implement guidelines for the priests and the priests to roll up their sleeves and put it to practice on a case by case basis.

It seems to me that in essence the question is thus: May a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not received an annulment of their first marriage receive Holy Communion? If so, under what specific circumstance is this permissible? I believe these are fair questions that ought to be unequivocally answered.

 

[pnewton]

It seems to me that in essence the question is thus: May a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not received an annulment of their first marriage receive Holy Communion? If so, under what specific circumstance is this permissible? I believe these are fair questions that ought to be unequivocally answered.

You are not alone in your belief, but the Holy Father specifically wants ministry to be done apart from legalism, which is the only path for the second question you asked. I believe the first depends on what you mean by “may”. Are you speaking in general (then no), or is there any possibility (yes).

 

[JimG]

Admittedly, every individual situation is different, even unique. That does not eliminate the need for clarity. In working with individual couples, a pastor will necessarily seek to clarify their situation. The first question to be answered is: Is a first marriage valid? That leads to an answer to the second question: Is a subsequent marriage following civil divorce (but no decree of nullity) valid? If a second marriage is valid, communion is not a problem. If a second marriage is not valid, can the couple receive communion while being conscious of living in an invalid second marriage?

 

[patricius79]

Someone can do acts that are objectively wrong and still receive Communion if the requirements for mortal sin of full knowledge/deliberate consent are not met. I think what Pope Francis says in AL would be an extension of that or those in irregular situations.

I guess I’m having trouble with the extension of that idea to those that are habitually committing sin which is objectively grave, whether it is sex in an irregular marriage, or if its contraception, or if its theft, or heresy, or whatever it might be.

Unless, of course, they are truly ill psychologically, such as a repressive disorder… I’m familiar with some of the writings of Conrad Baars MD and Anna Terruwe MD, the great Catholic psychiatrists.

I think that we all need to remember that the Ten Commandments are minimal moral requirements, and that we must intend to keep all of them if we wish to receive Communion.

 

[patricius79]

Admittedly, every individual situation is different, even unique. That does not eliminate the need for clarity. In working with individual couples, a pastor will necessarily seek to clarify their situation. The first question to be answered is: Is a first marriage valid? That leads to an answer to the second question: Is a subsequent marriage following civil divorce (but no decree of nullity) valid? If a second marriage is valid, communion is not a problem. If a second marriage is not valid, can the couple receive communion while being conscious of living in an invalid second marriage?

I don’t see how they could, unless they are intending to live without sex in the irregular marriage.

Maybe the idea here is that the priest is going to substitute for marriage tribunals in deciding if the first marriage is valid, and if he think’s it’s not, then he blesses the second marriage…?

 

[TMC]

Admittedly, every individual situation is different, even unique. That does not eliminate the need for clarity. In working with individual couples, a pastor will necessarily seek to clarify their situation. The first question to be answered is: Is a first marriage valid? That leads to an answer to the second question: Is a subsequent marriage following civil divorce (but no decree of nullity) valid? If a second marriage is valid, communion is not a problem. If a second marriage is not valid, can the couple receive communion while being conscious of living in an invalid second marriage?

They need clarity from their pastor. The rest of us do not need clarity as to how the pastor made his decision. Not all things in life are subject to been reduced to a decision matrix. Some of the most important things cannot be?

 

[JimG]

They need clarity from their pastor. The rest of us do not need clarity as to how the pastor made his decision. Not all things in life are subject to been reduced to a decision matrix. Some of the most important things cannot be?

That’s true. But the question of whether one is still married to former spouse cannot really be usefully answered with a “maybe.”

 

[TMC]

That’s true. But the question of whether one is still married to former spouse cannot really be usefully answered with a “maybe.”

No one is suggesting that the answer is maybe. Some people are upset that individual pastors are given the authority to confer with the individuals actually involved and conclude that the answer is “no,” apparently because those people would prefer the answer to be “yes.” Why they think it is any of their business is beyond me.

 

[Brendan]

You are not alone in your belief, but the Holy Father specifically wants ministry to be done apart from legalism, which is the only path for the second question you asked.

It would claim that the desire for clarity regarding truth is not ‘legalism’. Being pastoral, by definition, means speaking truth, and leading ones sheep along the correct path. Thus, pastoral action would require clarity of truth.

We have a case now of one bishop producing an implementation guideline, as requested by the Pope, and another bishop referring to it a “naive, at best”. Is it meant to be up to each bishop to create their own guidelines as they see fit?, in which case, what case is there for one bishop to criticize another bishop’s guidelines. Or, if there IS a correct implementation that is to be common across the whole Church, cannot a bishop expect clarification?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I guess I’m having trouble with the extension of that idea to those that are habitually committing sin which is objectively grave, whether it is sex in an irregular marriage, or if its contraception, or if its theft, or heresy, or whatever it might be.

Are you saying there can’t possibly be any extension of that, where someone in an irregular situation lacks full knowledge or complete consent? I would guess that a pastor talks to people in complex situations about their dilemmas more times in the course of a few months than I probably will over the course of my entire life. I tried to come up with a hypothetical irregular situation earlier in the thread where maybe one of the elements for a mortal sin was missing (although I don’t know, and I’m also not too creative).

I think this ties into Pope Francis’ concern that we need to form consciences more than create rules. It would be impossible to create rules for every single situation that a person might encounter, which is one reason why a person needs to have a conscience formed by the Church so that they can properly discern God’s will. And if a conscience is properly formed to begin with we wouldn’t encounter some of these situations at all.

I think that we all need to remember that the Ten Commandments are minimal moral requirements, and that we must intend to keep all of them if we wish to receive Communion.

I don’t think anyone here denies this.