Pope vows he won’t be slowed down by ‘ultra-conservatives’

[CrossofChrist]

I’m glad that you found the Church, my friend. Your posts are examples of good works that gain merit.

Thank you.

 

[JosieN]

Here are my original questions. I thought it might be helpful to you, if you decide to answer my next questions.

I gather from this that the old rule was no Holy Communion for those who were divorced and remarried without getting an annulment, because they were believed to be living in mortal sin unless they were living as brother and sister. Now the rule is more open towards those divorced and remarried, because it is no longer thought of as living in mortal sin when it is believed that all three conditions for a mortal sin are not met, because a mortal sin is only mortal if it has all three of these

1. grave matter 2) full knowledge/sufficient reflection 3) complete consent. Am I understanding it correctly?

Aren’t these things sometimes difficult to prove? Do you think it is God’s will to open the door to as many as possible to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, even when there is no way to prove there wasn’t full knowledge/sufficient reflection and complete consent? Maybe this is why the old rules stayed in place until now, because there is too much room for error in this way of doing things. There may be some who are not worthy to receive Holy Communion but will be allowed. What do you think?

Yes.

Well the rule itself did NOT change. I think the concern is whether or not some people are being affected by it when perhaps they shouldn’t be.

This is why it is important to stay faithful to what the Church teaches, as AL 300 states.

Thank you for your reply. It was very helpful. It brought a few more questions to my mind.

What will happen if one divorced/remarried couple is allowed Holy Communion because it was believed they did not have full knowledge and another is not allowed and who is to judge them on full knowledge? How can the facts be interpreted in the same way for each couple seeking Holy Communion? Also, humans error, and some are lenient and others are not.

Wouldn’t it be better to leave things as they are and let God be the judge? There may be divorced/remarried couples in the past that may not have had full knowledge of the sin, but they obeyed the rules of the Church, because they understood that only God would know for certain if they were sinless and worthy of Holy Communion. His Wisdom is greater than any humans. I am sure this couple would be greatly rewarded in Heaven for their obedience, for even under this difficult circumstance they remained faithful to Him and His Church. God is wise and there is no room for error when He is the judge.

 

[JimG]

Here are my original questions. I thought it might be helpful to you, if you decide to answer my next questions.

Thank you for your reply. It was very helpful. It brought a few more questions to my mind.

What will happen if one divorced/remarried couple is allowed Holy Communion because it was believed they did not have full knowledge and another is not allowed and who is to judge them on full knowledge? How can the facts be interpreted in the same way for each couple seeking Holy Communion? Also, humans error, and some are lenient and others are not.

Wouldn’t it be better to leave things as they are and let God be the judge? There may be divorced/remarried couples in the past that may not have had full knowledge of the sin, but they obeyed the rules of the Church, because they understood that only God would know for certain if they were sinless and worthy of Holy Communion. His Wisdom is greater than any humans. I am sure this couple would be greatly rewarded in Heaven for their obedience, for even under this difficult circumstance they remained faithful to Him and His Church. God is wise and there is no room for error when He is the judge.

This is a good question; it sounds to me as though we may be trying to change things without considering the validity of the prior marriage itself. Culpability or lack thereof for a previous divorce and subsequent remarriage does not change the fact that the current marriage is either valid or it is not. Validity of the marriage, in my view, should be the determining factor, not culpability. Can one decide that he is in an invalid marriage, but can still receive communion anyway?

 

[JosieN]

This is a good question; it sounds to me as though we may be trying to change things without considering the validity of the prior marriage itself. Culpability or lack thereof for a previous divorce and subsequent remarriage does not change the fact that the current marriage is either valid or it is not. Validity of the marriage, in my view, should be the determining factor, not culpability. Can one decide that he is in an invalid marriage, but can still receive communion anyway?

Good point, I am still not sure if I understand the thinking on this, but if communion is allowed in an invalid marriage, wouldn’t that mean the rule itself has changed? I keep hearing people saying nothing has been changed.

 

[KSU]

…I am still not sure if I understand the thinking on this, but if communion is allowed in an invalid marriage, wouldn’t that mean the rule itself has changed?
**No, it wouldn’t. There has been no change in the teaching itself, and no one says there has been. When Communion is “allowed” in an invalid marriage, it means only that the original and still current teaching is not being followed–either because of the current confusion or because of someone’s disobedience.

Priests can’t check for celibacy cards when administering the Eucharist to such people, so you will be hard pressed to find insiders who say that disobedience in this matter is not happening. E.G.:
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20398**

As you know, the teaching is based on the words of the “ultra-conservative” (i,e., ultra-orthodox) person Himself, with all due respect to Joaquín Morales Solá, so it can’t change.

I keep hearing people saying nothing has been changed.
**Believe them. Some people who may try to convince you otherwise are suffering because they entered into invalid marriages and now can’t/won’t give up marital relations in order to receive Communion. It’s natural that those people would grasp at straws during this time of confusion. I can’t imagine how much they suffer, and we should pray for them. Good Pope Francis is suffering with them (as is his predecessor) and is looking for ways to help them. Still, he knows he has no ability to effect wholesale relief anymore than he can effect relief to his children suffering torture and murder from present-day barbarians. **

 

[CrossofChrist]

What will happen if one divorced/remarried couple is allowed Holy Communion because it was believed they did not have full knowledge and another is not allowed and who is to judge them on full knowledge?

At the end of the day, it’s the same as it is for anyone else: his/her own conscience. But a priest in the internal forum can be of help, *especially * for those who are less familiar with Church teachings or have been away from the Church for decades, etc.

How can the facts be interpreted in the same way for each couple seeking Holy Communion?

Not sure what you are asking.

Also, humans error, and some are lenient and others are not.

That’s true.

Wouldn’t it be better to leave things as they are and let God be the judge?

I’m not really understanding this since things (i.e rules) haven’t changed. The issue is whether there are some people who are in a situation where the rules in canon law don’t fully apply (at least that’s my understanding).

There may be divorced/remarried couples in the past that may not have had full knowledge of the sin, but they obeyed the rules of the Church, because they understood that only God would know for certain if they were sinless and worthy of Holy Communion. His Wisdom is greater than any humans. I am sure this couple would be greatly rewarded in Heaven for their obedience, for even under this difficult circumstance they remained faithful to Him and His Church. God is wise and there is no room for error when He is the judge.

Yes, but if God’s grace through the sacraments can reach more people (and the reason this is as big an issue as it is is because there are lots of divorced/remarried people w/children today) why shouldn’t we try to make it a reality?

About the bold: it’s not about disobeying the rules of the Church. All people are called to obey them. This is about a deeper analysis into whether or not a person is meeting the criteria which prevents them from receiving.

I’ll give another hypothetical scenario: The Church has been saying for a while that if you don’t live as brother/sister when in the divorced/remarried situation you can’t receive Communion. Someone divorced/remarried who has been away from the Church for a while and just recently decided to come back hears that, but when they are with the remarried person they are in such a habit of not being chaste that they fail to fully realize (i.e lack sufficient reflection) while committing an unchaste act that they are gravely sinning. Then they remember the rule and think that they are prohibited from receiving Communion, experiencing great sorrow and guilt. Scenarios like the one they experienced happen too frequently–they continue to lack sufficient reflection–that they then conclude they must not have a firm purpose of amendment and must refrain from even Confession.

While that hypothetical scenario does smack of scrupulous tendencies WRT refraining from Confession, it’s not hard to see how a person in that situation could think Communion is only a “prize for the perfect” not “medicine for the weak”.

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is a good question; it sounds to me as though we may be trying to change things without considering the validity of the prior marriage itself. Culpability or lack thereof for a previous divorce and subsequent remarriage does not change the fact that the current marriage is either valid or it is not. Validity of the marriage, in my view, should be the determining factor, not culpability.

I think the issue involves culpability at the present, since obviously past innocence doesn’t excuse guilt in committing acts in the present.

Can one decide that he is in an invalid marriage, but can still receive communion anyway?

No, if this were the case there would be a major change.

 

[JosieN]

While that hypothetical scenario does smack of scrupulous tendencies WRT refraining from Confession, it’s not hard to see how a person in that situation could think Communion is only a “prize for the perfect” not "medicine for the weak".

If your interpretation of weak means, a sinner who sees no wrong in what they are doing and continues on that path, I fear they will never get better. It has always been taught that one who has committed a mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion. If it was a medicine for mortal sins, why wouldn’t it be given out more freely to everyone? I do not think it is a cure for unholy behaviors, I believe it is to be given to those who put Jesus Christ first in their lives, and because He is Holy, we must try to be like Him, and have a clean heart and soul to receive Him.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If your interpretation of weak means, a sinner who sees no wrong in what they are doing and continues on that path

Uh, no. In my example they know it’s wrong, but they fail to realize it concretely at the time. Ever do something sinful and then in the middle of doing it come to the realization that what you are doing is grave matter (if not you are much holier than me )? You lacked sufficient reflection (full knowledge) at first.

Someone who is weak is someone who falls and is prone to sin (aren’t we all?).

Also, I was merely echoing Pope Francis.

I fear they will never get better.

Yeah if they have no resolve to avoid sin then they won’t get better.

It has always been taught that one who has committed a mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion.

Yeah and I’m not saying anything to the contrary…

I do not think it is a cure for unholy behaviors

It strengthens us and helps us to avoid sin. The Catechism says so.

I believe it is to be given to those who put Jesus Christ first in their lives, and because He is Holy, we must try to be like Him, and have a clean heart and soul to receive Him.

I don’t disagree.

 

[JosieN]

Uh, no. In my example they know it’s wrong, but they fail to realize it concretely at the time. Ever do something sinful and then in the middle of doing it come to the realization that what you are doing is grave matter (if not you are much holier than me )? You lacked sufficient reflection (full knowledge) at first.

Someone who is weak is someone who falls and is prone to sin (aren’t we all?).

Also, I was merely echoing Pope Francis.

I fear no one will understand this new way of thinking, it will only cause confusion and frustration. Nothing has changed, but everything has changed, that is what I have been hearing, and when they have finished confusing us, what will be left of the Church teachings?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I won’t try to address every single one of those things listed since that would take too long. But I will discuss (my understanding of) this phrase from Amoris Laetitia 301 that surprised me when I first read it: A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”. One might ask, “How can someone not realize after hearing what the Church teaches that what they are doing is wrong?” I’ll give a personal example. When I was a Protestant I had a tough time understanding what the Church meant by “merit” and “works”. I had read Church documents, not just a sentence taken out of context, and I still had a hard time understanding how it was not semi-pelagianism in some form; my understanding of justification was so influenced by my Protestant explanation of the issue that I failed to really grasp what the Church was saying even after reading about it. I believed wrongly about what God’s Word was saying, but I was sincere. I can imagine that in our world today other people might face a similar problem concerning marriage and the family.

Thinking about it I’m not sure if the above analogy I gave is useful for interpreting AL 301 when it discusses “inherent values”. Perhaps “difficulty in understanding its inherent values” refers to when a person lacks sufficient reflection, having a vague idea that something is wrong without fully realizing it yet (perhaps easier for those who have had scruples to understand what I mean). Maybe I should start a thread about this?

 

[pnewton]

Wouldn’t it be better to leave things as they are and let God be the judge?

God is the judge either way. Leaving things as they are also presumes a judgment, as much as changing any disciple would. Your point on obedience is carries a lot of weight.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

The term “untra-conservative” was used by the interviewer, not the Holy father. And the term ultra-conservative doesn’t equate to “all who hold to traditional conservative views.” Don’t read more into this than is there.

It is like all those who thought there was a massive gay conspiracy in the Vatican when Pope Benedict referred to a ‘gay lobby.’ It ended up being about 5 clerics.

Don’t jump to conclusions with little to no evidence.

I second that motion!

 

[Darryl1958]

The interview was in Spanish. When asked about ultra-conservatives, the pope’s own term for the people who ‘say no to everything’ was not given, and something strange about cutting off heads.
We can only infer that he accepted the interviewers use of the term as a term that had some meaning to him.

 

[TMC]

The interview was in Spanish. When asked about ultra-conservatives, the pope’s own term for the people who ‘say no to everything’ was not given, and something strange about cutting off heads.
We can only infer that he accepted the interviewers use of the term as a term that had some meaning to him.

Again, its not so mysterious. Look at the bishops that the Pope has reassigned or retired. On the other hand, look at those that he has promoted, praised, and those he keeps close to himself. Everyone knows what he is talking about, its just not polite to name names.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If your interpretation of weak means, a sinner who sees no wrong in what they are doing and continues on that path, I fear they will never get better. It has always been taught that one who has committed a mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion. If it was a medicine for mortal sins, why wouldn’t it be given out more freely to everyone? I do not think it is a cure for unholy behaviors, I believe it is to be given to those who put Jesus Christ first in their lives, and because He is Holy, we must try to be like Him, and have a clean heart and soul to receive Him.

Let us be perfectly clear. This is the teaching of Pope Francis from the apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 47:

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.
Personally, I don’t have any problem finding the sort of Catholics whom the Pope indicates as those by whom he will not be slowed. I think they make themselves abundantly self-evident by the things they say and the things that they do. I am certainly not in doubt as to how I regard such people.

 

[JosieN]

Let us be perfectly clear. This is the teaching of Pope Francis from the apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 47:

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.
Personally, I don’t have any problem finding the sort of Catholics whom the Pope indicates as those by whom he will not be slowed. I think they make themselves abundantly self-evident by the things they say and the things that they do. I am certainly not in doubt as to how I regard such people.

Thank you for the information. I appreciate your thoughtful answers and opinions. Would you mind answering a question I have been wondering about? I understand there are Catholics whom the Pope indicates as those by whom he will not be slowed. Why would they want to slow him, and what is it that they do not want him to do quickly? Is there something urgent that needs to be changed and this is why the Pope does not want to be slowed down by them? I have been curious about this for awhile, and reading as much as I can to understand things better.

 

[Darryl1958]

Again, its not so mysterious. Look at the bishops that the Pope has reassigned or retired. On the other hand, look at those that he has promoted, praised, and those he keeps close to himself. Everyone knows what he is talking about, its just not polite to name names.

I was merely responding to the thread of thought that stated that the pope didn’t actually say the world ultra-conservative.

But he was quoted in that very sentence as stating that he is not the kind of person who chops off heads.
Maybe he needed a winkie emoticon with that part of the quote?

 

[KSU]

Let us be perfectly clear. This is the teaching of Pope Francis from the apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 47:

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.
…

Because you replied directly to it, your above words seem to dispute the following statement by JosieN, viz:
“If your interpretation of weak means, a sinner who sees no wrong in what they are doing and continues on that path, I fear they will never get better. It has always been taught that one who has committed a mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion.”

Was that your intent?

 

[JosieN]

Because you replied directly to it, your above words seem to dispute the following statement by JosieN, viz:
“If your interpretation of weak means, a sinner who sees no wrong in what they are doing and continues on that path, I fear they will never get better. It has always been taught that one who has committed a mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion.”

Was that your intent?

I know you were not asking me this question, but I would like to give the complete paragraph as it was written, to make clear the point I was trying to make. I hope you do not mind. So here it is.

“If your interpretation of weak means, a sinner who sees no wrong in what they are doing and continues on that path, I fear they will never get better. It has always been taught that one who has committed a mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion. If it was a medicine for mortal sins, why wouldn’t it be given out more freely to everyone? I do not think it is a cure for unholy behaviors, I believe it is to be given to those who put Jesus Christ first in their lives, and because He is Holy, we must try to be like Him, and have a clean heart and soul to receive Him.”