San Diego's Bishop McElroy strongly encourages Communion for divorced/remarried [CC]

[Catholic_Press]

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, California, has asked his priests to encourage Catholics who are divorced and remarried to consider whether “God is calling them to return to the Eucharist.”

Following up on recommendations from a diocesan Synod held in October, Bishop McElroy instructed his pastors to post notices in parish bulletins, inviting divorced and remarried Catholics to “utilize the internal forum of conscience” in making their decisions whether they should receive Communion.

Citing the deliberations of the diocesan Synod, the bishop also said that parishes should welcome gay and lesbian couples, and couples cohabitating before marriage. “The Synod pointed to the need to invite young couples lovingly, non-judgmentally and energetically into Catholic marriage and to provide mentors for them,” he said.

More…

 

[twf]

On the surface, this seems to go well beyond what other dioceses are allowing in light of AL? I thought all agreed that it was only in rare, extraordinary circumstances that those living in an illicit union could receive (if not living as brother and sister).

 

[Mark121359]

And yet some still wonder why Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner are asking the Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia?

Peace, Mark

 

[Havard]

Ross Douthat penned a strong reaction in The New York Times yesterday.

An excerpt:

You will notice a few things about McElroy’s teaching, as opposed to Buttiglione’s analysis. The first is that the language is completely different: Nothing gets called a “grave sin” or an “evil” or even “illegitimate” by the bishop; every tension and contradiction is resolved through gradual but inexorable processes that resemble a conversation rather than a confession. (Indeed, the word “confession” appears nowhere in the entire document; the word “sin” appears only in the quotation from Pope Francis suggesting when the term does not necessarily apply.)

The second is that the priest’s sacramental role and responsibility diminishes dramatically. There is no sense that a confessor might have an active role himself in deciding whether to absolve a sinner, or that a priest might have some obligation (as indeed the priest does under canon law, which San Diego’s priests are effectively being instructed by their bishop to ignore) to protect believers from sacrilege and the eucharist from profanement. Instead the priest becomes basically a counselor, there to help validate the individual Catholic in a decision that only he or she can make, with no supernatural power or responsibilities of his own…

Full column: mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2016/12/01/the-end-of-catholic-marriage/?referer=

 

[_Abyssinia]

Are divorced and remarried Catholics being required to remain brother and sister to receive Communion in San Diego?

 

[Seamus_L]

In the Archdiocese of San Diego, it sounds like they are not. In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, it sounds like they are.

 

[Randolph]

In the Archdiocese of San Diego, it sounds like they are not. In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, it sounds like they are.

No matter how well people have spun and will spin it? This confusion will only get larger and more daring. Until clarity is achieved (again), damages will be done to the faith and to many souls. It seems that the word “pastoring” is the new word to watch out for. I will place my trust completely in the Holy Spirit to protect the Church as always. Let us pray for God’s will be done–not ours.

I miss Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI so much…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, California, has asked his priests to encourage Catholics who are divorced and remarried to consider whether “God is calling them to return to the Eucharist.”

Following up on recommendations from a diocesan Synod held in October, Bishop McElroy instructed his pastors to post notices in parish bulletins, inviting divorced and remarried Catholics to “utilize the internal forum of conscience” in making their decisions whether they should receive Communion.

Citing the deliberations of the diocesan Synod, the bishop also said that parishes should welcome gay and lesbian couples, and couples cohabitating before marriage. “The Synod pointed to the need to invite young couples lovingly, non-judgmentally and energetically into Catholic marriage and to provide mentors for them,” he said.

More…

I can understand ‘welcoming’ cohabiting before marriage couples (not that I have seen, or even heard from, those who are NOT welcomed, that is, treated exactly the same as any other person in the parish, in at least the last 4-5 decades), because they will, hopefully, enter into Catholic marriage. But I don’t see how gay and lesbian couples could enter into Catholic marriage as gays and lesbians, so that’s confusing.

 

[pnewton]

I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions yet. This story has passed through at least three different sources, one of which was not very Catholic-friendly, to end up on Catholic Culture. Here are a couple of the bulletins from which this “news” started to grow.

sdcathedral.org/uploads/mce/edd6bb4181065a5b9fb559ad9fddeef16a975d07/970271%20November%2013%202016.pdf

stmoside.org/pastorcolumn/Pastor2016-1113.pdf

Here is the part that started the stir:

The delegates spoke movingly
to the need for the Church to reach out to divorced men and
women at every moment of their journey, to support them spiritually
and pastorally, to help them move through the annulment
process, and to assist those who are divorced and remarried and
cannot receive an annulment to utilize the internal forum of conscience
in order to discern if God is calling them to return to the
Eucharist.

Note that there is nothing in here that mentions continence. That was something made up and assumed by a Life Site News writer and then re-worded by Catholic Culture, who then made up a title that sounded good.

Do I think something beyond continence was intended? Possibly, but I would pretend for my guesses to be news. I think Catholic Culture dropped the ball on this article. The would be better served by discontinuing copying stories from Life Site News. So, is there confusion? Absolutely. However, the solution is not to have the Holy Father say the same thing over and over and over and over. A better solution is to stop believing everything read on the internet, or at a minimum, chase down linked references to the primary source. There are some bad people out there that are using every opportunity to undermine the Catholic Church. If you are going to be opinionated, then don’t be lazy and take everything you read as gospel.

 

[tseleehw]

On the surface, this seems to go well beyond what other dioceses are allowing in light of AL? I thought all agreed that it was only in rare, extraordinary circumstances that those living in an illicit union could receive (if not living as brother and sister).

Yes, it appears that this is by far the most liberal interpretation of AL that I have seen, at least. Based on these guidelines, it appears that all couples will be encouraged to decide themselves, after consultations with a priest (I wonder how that’s going to work out).

One thing is clear from the myriad of guidelines that we have seen so far, and that is that divorced and remarried couples ability to receive communion without living as brother and sister will largely be determined by their geographical location. If you live in diocese X, you may be able to receive. If you live in diocese Y, you may not have that possibility. These are troubling and confusing times for the Church, and it’s probably not going to get any better any time soon.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

But I thought we had a synod to help the family.

How does this help my family?

How does this strengthen my faith. It only weakens it.

 

[pnewton]

But I thought we had a synod to help the family.

How does this help my family?

How does this strengthen my faith. It only weakens it.

This news article is on the diocesan synod in San Diego. I cannot imagine how this would weaken a family. Even if you are in San Diego, you can always choose not to speak to a priest in the internal forum.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions yet.

I find the actual texts that are published by His Excellency to be quite well written and thoughtful.

In contrast, I find agenda driven commentary offered by certain websites, which I do not consider to be “news” in spite of the self-proclaimed assertion that it is, to be at best of dubious quality and minimal value…especially when contrasted to the bishop’s own writings or his statements that emanate from the diocese itself.

 

[St_Francis]

I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions yet. This story has passed through at least three different sources, one of which was not very Catholic-friendly, to end up on Catholic Culture. Here are a couple of the bulletins from which this “news” started to grow.

sdcathedral.org/uploads/mce/edd6bb4181065a5b9fb559ad9fddeef16a975d07/970271%20November%2013%202016.pdf

stmoside.org/pastorcolumn/Pastor2016-1113.pdf

Here is the part that started the stir:

Note that there is nothing in here that mentions continence. That was something made up and assumed by a Life Site News writer and then re-worded by Catholic Culture, who then made up a title that sounded good.

Do I think something beyond continence was intended? Possibly, but I would pretend for my guesses to be news. I think Catholic Culture dropped the ball on this article. The would be better served by discontinuing copying stories from Life Site News. So, is there confusion? Absolutely. However, the solution is not to have the Holy Father say the same thing over and over and over and over. A better solution is to stop believing everything read on the internet, or at a minimum, chase down linked references to the primary source. There are some bad people out there that are using every opportunity to undermine the Catholic Church. If you are going to be opinionated, then don’t be lazy and take everything you read as gospel.

From the article you quoted: *assist those who are divorced and remarried and
cannot receive an annulment to utilize the **internal forum of conscience
*in order to discern if God is calling them to return to the
Eucharist.

The so-called internal forum solution is to discuss one’s situation with a priest and thus evaluate one’s situation to see whether one is objectively in a state of sin or not. Prior to this time, the Vatican has expressly said this is not a possibility:

1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
2. It is certainly true that a judgment about one’s own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one’s own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church’s mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.

from a letter written expressly to address this issue.

 

[_Abyssinia]

From the article you quoted: *assist those who are divorced and remarried and
cannot receive an annulment to utilize the **internal forum of conscience
***in order to discern if God is calling them to return to the
Eucharist.

The so-called internal forum solution is to discuss one’s situation with a priest and thus evaluate one’s situation to see whether one is objectively in a state of sin or not. Prior to this time, the Vatican has expressly said this is not a possibility:

1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
2. It is certainly true that a judgment about one’s own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one’s own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church’s mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.

from a letter written expressly to address this issue.

That same document says

This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for 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’"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Bold text my emphases.

 

[Thomas_White]

I find the actual texts that are published by His Excellency to be quite well written and thoughtful.

In contrast, I find agenda driven commentary offered by certain websites, which I do not consider to be “news” in spite of the self-proclaimed assertion that it is, to be at best of dubious quality and minimal value…especially when contrasted to the bishop’s own writings or his statements that emanate from the diocese itself.

Father, with every due respect: Would you kindly provide for us you informed understanding of number 301 of AL?

My question is as follows: “Would those divorced Catholics in an irregular second marriage who persist in continuing the grave sin of adultery be permitted to receive the Eucharist?”

For an answer, ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ would suffice.

 

[Ender]

I find the actual texts that are published by His Excellency to be quite well written and thoughtful.

In contrast, I find agenda driven commentary offered by certain websites, which I do not consider to be “news” in spite of the self-proclaimed assertion that it is, to be at best of dubious quality and minimal value…especially when contrasted to the bishop’s own writings or his statements that emanate from the diocese itself.

However dubious their quality as news sources may be, they appear to have gotten this one right.

The November 13 Bulletin of San Rafael parish contained this:*The delegates spoke movingly to the need for the Church…to assist those who are divorced and remarried and cannot receive an annulment to utilize the internal forum of conscience in order to discern if God is calling them to return to the Eucharist.
*The same information also appeared in the bulletins of St. Thomas More church and St. Joseph Cathedral. Since they all state that the position came from the diocesan synod there is little reason to doubt either the source or the accuracy of the statement. One can only wonder what to other situations the “internal forum of conscience” may be applicable.

Ender

 

[_Abyssinia]

However dubious their quality as news sources may be, they appear to have gotten this one right.

The November 13 Bulletin of San Rafael parish contained this:*The delegates spoke movingly to the need for the Church…to assist those who are divorced and remarried and cannot receive an annulment to utilize the internal forum of conscience in order to discern if God is calling them to return to the Eucharist.
*The same information also appeared in the bulletins of St. Thomas More church and St. Joseph Cathedral. Since they all state that the position came from the diocesan synod there is little reason to doubt either the source or the accuracy of the statement. One can only wonder what to other situations the “internal forum of conscience” may be applicable.

Ender

And nothing said regarding those that can not get an annulment remaining abstinent before they could receive Communion?

 

[St_Francis]

And nothing said regarding those that can not get an annulment remaining abstinent before they could receive Communion?

That same document says

This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for 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’"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Bold text my emphases.

The issue is not about those who live as brother and sister but about those who do not.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

How is this not considered desecrating the Eucharist. Jesus was clear about adultery. It is clear about the Eucharist and sin…

This will be applied to all sin eventually