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

[goout]

But if people start hearing the conclusions, at least they might delve deeper. It isn’t too difficult to draw connections between Christ on the cross and the Church, compared with husband and wife. Who isn’t attracted to the idea of a lover pouring out body, blood, and soul? Our pop culture is saturated with the story line.

It’s ridiculous to not try harder. We have gifts we aren’t using. It’s maddening.

I agree with you.
I think it will take a new generation of catechists to do this work. Much of the current group, our area anyway, is stuck in a 70’s-80’s evangelization that is feelings oriented.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry about that, it was not my intention. For the 20-odd years previous to AL, the internal forum was a so-called solution to the problem of being unable to obtain a decree of nullity. It was not a true solution because the Vatican had forbidden its use.

I think I was mistaken because the letter you referenced did not reference the internal forum, but rather spoke of conscience. While the two issues are related, they are not the same. I do not think Pope Francis envisions allowing everyone to follow their conscience, as he wants the involvement and hard work on the part of a priest. Formation of conscience is part of this internal forum procedure.

 

[St_Francis]

I think I was mistaken because the letter you referenced did not reference the internal forum, but rather spoke of conscience. While the two issues are related, they are not the same. I do not think Pope Francis envisions allowing everyone to follow their conscience, as he wants the involvement and hard work on the part of a priest. Formation of conscience is part of this internal forum procedure.

No, the letter does not specifically name the IFS, because that is not an official term. However, the document very clearly talks about it:

1. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church’s doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. **In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. **This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.
   I
   In some places, **it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. **This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What’s the difference between “an official authorisation” and the other authorisation?

 

[St_Francis]

What’s the difference between “an official authorisation” and the other authorisation?

Up until recently, the only way a divorced and remarried person could receive the sacraments (any sacraments), he or she would need to get a decree of nullify and then have the marriage either blessed or radically sanated. This would be an official authorization, insofar as there is one.

Some have suggested various solutions ranging from people just deciding for themselves that they can receive the Eucjarist (not under discussion) to the internal forum solution, in which through discussion with a priest one or both members of the couple discern whether their situation would warrant receiving sacraments.

Maybe one could say it’s like my saying I drive well enough to get a driver’s license and then going out and driving, or taking the test with an official DMV tester who “officially authorizes” me to drive?

 

[patricius79]

That same reasoning could be used to mandate all confessions be public and in front of the Church…
.

No it couldn’t. We all need to confess our sins and follow the Commandments, so as to help heal rather than harm Jesus, Mary, and the Church.

Nobody’s confessions are public.

In the case of adulterous unions, there is the addition of public scandal. So the Church teaches that they need to separate unless there is a serious reason why they can’t. And they definitely need to live in complete continence according to the Church.

For all of us, there is Infinite Mercy in Jesus through Mary.

 

[pnewton]

No, the letter does not specifically name the IFS, because that is not an official term. However, the document very clearly talks about it:

I don’t think so. This part was surely not part of the internal forum as I understood it, or as the Pope presented it.

"This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation. "

 

[pnewton]

I love this “internal forum of conscience”.

It is funny how everybody is only applying this stuff to sex related issues when we can use it for so much more.

It is not “funny”, It is the thread topic. It is the topic of Amortis Laetitia. It is no “funnier” than ESPN always going on and on about sports and not, philosophy.

 

[pnewton]

No it couldn’t. We all need to confess our sins and follow the Commandments, so as to help heal rather than harm Jesus, Mary, and the Church.

Nobody’s confessions are public.

In the case of adulterous unions, there is the addition of public scandal. So the Church teaches that they need to separate unless there is a serious reason why they can’t. And they definitely need to live in complete continence according to the Church.

For all of us, there is Infinite Mercy in Jesus through Mary.

Of course confessions are not public. That is the point. Everyone does not have a right to know about every one’s sin. Saying that adultery is not the same, does not give a reason it is not the same. It is circular logic. More to the point, the Pope thinks we need to not know everyone else’s business.

I have always seen a serious flaw in the whole scandal issue. Namely, except in cases of public figures, lack of knowledge does not cause scandal, but eliminates it. Consider how many people that you see receive communion every week. Do you know how many are on a first marriage or a second. For those who are on a second civil marriage, do you know which ones have an annulment? If you know of any, then you know more than I do . I know of no one’s particular situation. I save that for the gossips and the busybodies.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t think so. This part was surely not part of the internal forum as I understood it, or as the Pope presented it.

"This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation. "

So what happens if the priest does not agree with the conscience of the person in an irregular marriage?

 

[pnewton]

So what happens if the priest does not agree with the conscience of the person in an irregular marriage?

Well, according the Church teaching, he would need to follow his own conscience as well. How this will work is something that even now bishops are considering. It is the implementation of AL, as the Pope put it. However, if you remember, he wasn’t specific on how the process ends, but was clear that the priest is a part of this process.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, according the Church teaching, he would need to follow his own conscience as well. How this will work is something that even now bishops are considering. It is the implementation of AL, as the Pope put it. However, if you remember, he wasn’t specific on how the process ends, but was clear that the priest is a part of this process.

Is there a way for the priest to refuse communion to someone he believes to be in an adulterous relationship?

 

[phil19034]

I don’t see TOB being taught in parishes to any great degree for a couple of reasons.
It’s deeply grounded in philosophy, and philosophy is just too demanding and exacting a science for us in this time.
While TOB is very deep in it’s philosophical grounding, it is profoundly simple in it’s conclusions. It doesn’t leave much wiggle room.

Younger priests teach it to kids.

Teen youth groups learn TOB all the time.

If TOB can be taught to teens, it can be taught to adults. The problem is that older priests are afraid of another Humanae Vitae like back lash from the Baby Boomers.

 

[Ender]

Have you been part of a synod? If you had, you would know exactly the role of these participants and what their various statements actually carry and also what they do not carry in terms of effect. In the context of the synodal process, participants may make most intervention they wish and petition for anything, actually.

Clearly I was not part of the synod, but as a convert I have found that one of the great things about the Catholic church is that you don’t have to wonder about what she teaches; you can look it up. I don’t have to have attended the synod to know what came from it. I can look it up.

…it is the Bishop of the Diocese who will determine, by his authority, what emerges from this synod by his own promulgation.

This is true, but there are limits even on what bishops can promulgate. Surely you can appreciate the problem when two bishops appear to disagree about what constitutes church doctrine. The problem is further complicated by the fact that in this case we can’t simply “look it up” because the document that purportedly addresses the concern is the one that introduced the ambiguity in the first place.

As for your last comment, moral theologians as well as canonists do not have to “wonder” at the vast scope of situations that potentially can be resolved within the internal forum…and that are resolved within the internal forum.

Given that last year the scope of the internal forum did not include the reception of communion by the divorced and remarried it is not unreasonable to wonder how it may be expanded in the future.

Ender

 

[ARSpade]

It is not “funny”, It is the thread topic. It is the topic of Amortis Laetitia. It is no “funnier” than ESPN always going on and on about sports and not, philosophy.

I’m merely pointing out, as others have, that the thread topic (divorce, remarriage, sex out of wedlock) is the only time the “internal forum of conscience” gets brought up.

It never seems to come up in a discussion of any other modern moral issue such as warfare, murder, the death penalty, torture, etc. I find that interesting. Does my conscience only become totally mine, unable to be violated, when I’m between the sheets, so to speak?

Logically, if I can say, “Well, sure, I’m committing adultery but my conscience says it’s okay and I’m doing it for good reason and that means I’m fine” then why not say, “well, sure I’m committing torture on this enemy combatant, but my conscience says it’s okay because the info I got out of this guy saved 20 lives”.

 

[Ender]

" St Francis:

So what happens if the priest does not agree with the conscience of the person in an irregular marriage?

Well, according the Church teaching, he would need to follow his own conscience as well.

It’s one layer of complication on top of another. In an earlier post St. Francis provided this citation:* In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest.** This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision** to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.
*Having the divorced and remarried decide they are justified in receiving communion accords (in a way) with Canon 916, where each individual is obligated to examine his own conscience for his fitness to receive. Canon 915, however, obliges the priest not to present communion to those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

If by “respect(ing) their eventual decision” is meant the priest must allow them to receive communion over his own objection then he is faced with the problem of determining just how “manifest” the couple’s situation is. He must present communion where the situation is not manifest, and he must refuse it where it is.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Logically, if I can say, “Well, sure, I’m committing adultery but my conscience says it’s okay and I’m doing it for good reason and that means I’m fine” then why not say, “well, sure I’m committing torture on this enemy combatant, but my conscience says it’s okay because the info I got out of this guy saved 20 lives”.

This is an interesting comment, especially in regard to your signature line*“God take away your alms. For as you live by charity, so do I by war, and to me it is as genuine a vocation as yours.” – Sir John Hawkwood
*If Hawkwood’s conscience is clear in his belief that war is as genuine a vocation as charity, on what grounds can anyone object? I do think, though, that the individual you refer to in your comment does not think he is committing adultery, but rather that his situation is not adulterous. In the absence of concrete standards either position seems as warranted as the other.

Ender

 

[zz912]

I’m merely pointing out, as others have, that the thread topic (divorce, remarriage, sex out of wedlock) is the only time the “internal forum of conscience” gets brought up.

It never seems to come up in a discussion of any other modern moral issue such as warfare, murder, the death penalty, torture, etc. I find that interesting. Does my conscience only become totally mine, unable to be violated, when I’m between the sheets, so to speak?

It doesn’t even come up in topics that are explicitly up for prudential judgment, like tax policy, immigration, welfare, etc.

 

[zz912]

Of course confessions are not public. That is the point. Everyone does not have a right to know about every one’s sin. Saying that adultery is not the same, does not give a reason it is not the same. It is circular logic. More to the point, the Pope thinks we need to not know everyone else’s business.

I have always seen a serious flaw in the whole scandal issue. Namely, except in cases of public figures, lack of knowledge does not cause scandal, but eliminates it. Consider how many people that you see receive communion every week. Do you know how many are on a first marriage or a second. For those who are on a second civil marriage, do you know which ones have an annulment? If you know of any, then you know more than I do . I know of no one’s particular situation. I save that for the gossips and the busybodies.

It’s in the realm of “public” because marriages are public. There are no secret marriages in the Church. The Church makes sure they are public so that someone cannot attempt to marry twice. While you don’t know the marriage situation of most of the people in the pews around you, SOME of the people do know, especially friends and family.

They know if they went to the wedding in at St. Peter’s or if the wedding was on the beach or in a nondenominational church. It’s not being a gossip or busybody.

 

[TCEL]

It’s in the realm of “public” because marriages are public.

Contraception is a very private act, yet it’s had massive social consequences. That doesn’t mean I go snooping around trying to find out who is or isn’t contracepting. This is where the importance of faith, witness, and evangelization come in.