Synod. The Proposal of a “Third Way”

[Colorad007]

Conversion though, isn’t instantaneous. It can be a life-long process often two steps forward, one step back, ups and downs, periods of doubt and acedia. The beginning may be easy when we’re on fire with the faith, but the comes the tough parts, dark nights, etc. in the case of a couple it is x2. Even harder if one party isn’t Catholic, and the other wants to return to the faith.

This why I think the Holy Father is so insistent on some kind of healing process for these situations and why he insists it be on the Synod’s agenda. It is a pity that some seem to be trying to undermine the Synod process. Hopefully this idea won’t be torpedoed right out of the starting gate.

Well I think you are reading more into the Holy Father’s intentions than is warranted. But believe what you want.

Conversion is indeed a lifelong process for all of us, but how can you say that a person genuinely wants conversion when they are unwilling to relinquish the very things --adulterous sex–that is keeping them from entering into communion with Christ? Who is closer to repentance, the obdurate adulterer or the Muslim who pours out his life every day trying to know God more through repentance, prayer, and faith? And of is the adulterer who should receive Communion? Using your conversion-oriented rationale, there are not a lot of people who CANNOT receive Communion. The Pauline insistence on being in a state of grace when receiving Communion is unalterable and is applied for very basic theological reasons.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s an interesting concept but how many can understand it even in English?

Is it really that hard though? It struck me as a path of great hope and the fact that it harks back to the approach of the early Church and was put forward by a Dominican theologian… made me hopeful that the modern hardliners would at least consider it prayerfully.

What people long for when conversion begins, is the nourishment of grace, as Fr Michelet wisely noted. He suggests a way where the sacramental grace through the sacrament of penance may offer that to couples who are clearly between a rock and hard place as part of a penitential journey. They know they have diverged from Catholic teaching in their life choices but once returning to the faith (which does often result from experiencing the deep love of spouse and family) they are in fact already in a state of impotent contrition. Remember, that I am not seeing that it is the couples themselves filled with the indignance against the Church… it is the Priests and clergy on the ground who have struggled with this issue in the pastoral care of the flock, who’ve raised it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Conversion is a life-long process as monastics will tell you. These are circumstances where one party might not be Catholic being told by the Catholic party that their sex life must come to an end. I’m realistic about human nature and how well that will go over.

Unlike just being told to make a spiritual communion, at least this process would appear to offer the couple accompaniment on their conversion journey. Monks achieve deep conversion because they are accompanied and give each other mutual support.

A process of accompaniment that includes sacramental grace while the couple work out the process of annulment (if possible) seems a lot more realistic, human and charitable than just telling them to make a spiritual communion with no other support than that.

This idea is at least one that should be on the table for discussion, with the opposing sides in the debate at least declaring a truce that it may be seriously considered.

I really identify with that image and Christian model of monks or the cloistered orders having a genuine sense of brotherhood or sisterhood in journeying together, supporting each other, holding each other up. When people like this are fully aware of the nature of sacramental grace and its power to nourish and heal… it’s impossible to think of them all sitting at a banquet of grace seeing another starving outside their window. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” (Matt 15:27) says the Caananite women unworthy of the Lords bread.

It is natural that Catholics would want to find the crumbs that they could to feed their unworthy brothers and sisters.

 

[LongingSoul]

A murderer can go to confession and be absolved of his sin (if not exempted from his punishment) if he firmly intends not to repeat the sin, that is, if he is truly penitent.

A person who is divorced and remarried faces the same demands as any other sinner: he must show contrition. That is, he must have the intention of not repeating the sin, which is this case is sexual relations with someone other than the (first) spouse. So long as he is sexually active he cannot be forgiven and without absolution cannot receive.

Fr Michelet’s idea reflects a natural compassion that many Priests have for a situation that although contrition has grown with faith… the solution is not as easy as ‘intending not to murder again’.

It is certain that people in irregular relationships are barred from receiving the Eucharist, but it isn’t clear that such people are barred from all of the sacraments.

But reminiscent of the Caananite woman looking for the Lords special help, even the dogs deserve crumbs from the Masters table. (Matt 15"27)

What “issue”? How best to minister to such individuals? Yes. Whether they should be allowed to receive communion? No.

Those of us watching along with docility and faith in the Church, clearly heard Pope Francis say that there will be no change in the rules regarding Communion, so it paints a telling picture of the modern hardliners who translate that to mean that no discussion or thought should ever be given to other ways of ministering and finding a source of sacramental grace. I’ve pretty much decided to ignore those who do that from now on.

 

[Pulvis]

Sandro Magister is the one who wrote the hit job on Monsignor Ricca (i.e. the situation that led to Who am I to judge?) and he is definitely working for some disgruntled Curia members. I think that Burke regularly leaks information to him for instance. (I suspect Burke was the one who leaked word about his demotion to Magister to garner sympathy.) Magister along with Antonio Socci is a favorite of Rorate Caeli (if you want to read extreme right discussions.) I’d take anything he writes with a huge grain of salt because it is meant to undermine Pope Francis and his reforms, including any opening on communion for remarried divorcees.

There was no hit job done to Msgr. Ricca. There was however a very well documented history of object behavior which draws serious questions as to Father’s actions.
And you “tolerence” is showing through your comments about Raymond Cardinal Burke.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

There was no hit job done to Msgr. Ricca. There was however a very well documented history of object behavior which draws serious questions as to Father’s actions.
And you “tolerence” is showing through your comments about Raymond Cardinal Burke.

Yes. It was a hit job on Ricca meant to stop the reforms of Vatican finances. And I think that Burke is undermining Pope Francis and frankly am getting tired of the man’s passive aggressive interviews.

 

[Ender]

They know they have diverged from Catholic teaching in their life choices but once returning to the faith (which does often result from experiencing the deep love of spouse and family) they are in fact already in a state of impotent contrition.

“Impotent contrition”? What is that? If you mean they regret being in the position in which they find themselves, that’s probably true, but that isn’t what contrition means.

What people long for when conversion begins, is the nourishment of grace, as Fr Michelet wisely noted. He suggests a way where the sacramental grace through the sacrament of penance may offer that to couples who are clearly between a rock and hard place as part of a penitential journey.

Let’s be clear about what is being suggested, because it is not the sacrament of communion. It is a proposal to employ penance differently as an aid to engender contrition and reach absolution, at which point communion becomes possible. As Fr Michelet noted at the very beginning of his proposal, the elements of penitential repentance are inviolable, and no one can receive communion without satisfying those elements.The true difficulty for the divorced and remarried is not Eucharistic communion, but rather absolution. …] If it is not possible to give them the sacrament of penance, this is due just as much to the impediment that is found in them as to the current conditions of the sacrament, which presupposes for admission that the person be ready to receive absolution and to perform the three acts of the penitent: repentance (contrition), the admission of one’s sin (confession), and the reparation of this (satisfaction), with the firm intention to become detached from it, if this has not yet been done, not to repeat it, and to do penance.
Ender

 

[Ender]

Those of us watching along with docility and faith in the Church, clearly heard Pope Francis say that there will be no change in the rules regarding Communion, so it paints a telling picture of the modern hardliners who translate that to mean that no discussion or thought should ever be given to other ways of ministering and finding a source of sacramental grace.

How can you so consistently misunderstand what people are saying? No one - literally - no one has even hinted that “no discussion or thought should ever be given to other ways of ministering” to those unable to receive communion. Whatever you think you heard Francis say, the debate has been about what many of the German bishops have said - which is that some way should be found to give communion to at least some of those in irregular relationships.

How can you possibly believe that anyone would seriously believe that those who are suffering should not be ministered to? The discussion is not about whether to, but how to.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

I find this argument obscene. You are realistic about human nature but Vatican II, St. John Paul II, Pope.Benedict, the current prefect for the Congregation for the Divine Faith, and indeed Jesus Himself were not? All because you believe that people won’t just stop having sex with other despite it being abjectly immoral adulterous sex?

Come on.

It isn’t “obscene” to understand the limitations of human nature. Even the Rule of St. Benedict allows for the fact that we have different levels of ability, different limitations. The proper measure of what is possible in a situation is not what we are capable of, but what the other is capable of. Any evangelization or conversion of that person has to start with them, with where they are, not where we are. That is not to say that there isn’t an ideal we want to help them strive to, the Christian ideal proposed by the Church in her moral teachings.

How then would you deal with a penitent in a situation similar to this, if you were the priest in the confessional?

A penitent arrives and wants to come back to the Church after many years of absence. (S)he had a failed first marriage early on. It could be for any number of non or reduced culpability: abandonment or abuse by their first spouse; or it could be something such as the couple had difficulty surviving a major traumatic event, something such as the death of a child.

Whatever the reason, the person remarried and started a family with someone else many years ago, who is non-Catholic. It’s a successful family, with children; just the normal ups and downs of a “married” couple. But something is missing in the penitent’s life, God and His sacramental grace. (S)he has discussed it with the non-Catholic party. The non-Catholic doesn’t want to end their conjugal life or doesn’t feel able or ready to. The Catholic doesn’t know what to do to regularize their situation, perhaps because of difficulty tracking down the ex for the annulment process. The penitent is now in front of you in the confessional, crying.

All you have to offer is “I cannot give you absolution unless you stop having sex with your husband/wife because you’re in a situation of objective adultery”. According to the current “rules” you can’t say “well your culpability is not mortal”. You have no Church resource to offer the penitent to help them cope other than “go to Mass and make a spiritual communion”.

This is what the clergy in the trenches are asking for. How to deal with cases like this in the confessional or the parish office. How to find a path to welcome these people back in the Church and set them on the path to reconciliation and conversion. So how would you deal with the penitent in this case, if you were on the other side of the grille in the confessional?

And of is the adulterer who should receive Communion? Using your conversion-oriented rationale, there are not a lot of people who CANNOT receive Communion. The Pauline insistence on being in a state of grace when receiving Communion is unalterable and is applied for very basic theological reasons.

This particular discussion is not about receiving communion, it is about a penitential path.

I don’t agree with “by my rationale” most can receive communion. We are talking about taking things on a case-by-case basis. The case of the person in the example above would not be treated in the same way as the person sitting in the confessional who just abandoned his wife to take up with his new lover, for instance. A sin can be grave matter, guilt something else (read the CCC on masturbation for instance). There is nothing wrong with the basic doctrine of the Church that mortal sin requires 3 conditions:

1. Grave matter
2. Full knowledge
3. Full consent of the will (and this means not will tainted by pressure from someone else).

Or have you decided that this doctrine is only selectively applicable?

In any case the proposal here is:

1. not about changing doctrine;
2. is not about allowing reception of communion;
3. but is about finding a path to sacramental grace for those asking for healing.

On this basis, do you accept, or reject, that this proposal be discussed at the Synod? The clergy are simply asking for tools to deal with these cases and help the penitent with conversion and spiritual growth. Not just simple guidelines about who’s in, and who’s out.

Because I can tell you that with what they have now, they are successfully filling the pews in my wife’s Anglican parish.

 

[ProVobis]

Because I can tell you that with what they have now, they are successfully filling the pews in my wife’s Anglican parish.

Yes, but how much of this is done by glorifying the states of divorce and remarriage, among other things?

 

[Brendan]

I don’t agree with “by my rationale” most can receive communion. We are talking about taking things on a case-by-case basis. The case of the person in the example above would not be treated in the same way as the person sitting in the confessional who just abandoned his wife to take up with his new lover, for instance. A sin can be grave matter, guilt something else (read the CCC on masturbation for instance). There is nothing wrong with the basic doctrine of the Church that mortal sin requires 3 conditions:

1. Grave matter
2. Full knowledge
3. Full consent of the will (and this means not will tainted by pressure from someone else).

Or have you decided that this doctrine is only selectively applicable?.

The denial of Holy Communion does not entirely rest on culpability.

Note the wrong that is described in Familaris Consortio.

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.

Culpability is not a factor, what IS a factor is that their condition objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and the Church.

In addition, as noted by the Church, it leads the faithful into error and confusion about the teachings on marriage.

THOSE are the conditions that need to be rectified. And those are independent of culpability

 

[Tigg]

In any case the proposal here is:

1. not about changing doctrine;
2. is not about allowing reception of communion;
3. but is about finding a path to sacramental grace for those asking for healing.

Given the content of some comments, even on this thread alone, do you really foresee this a satisfactory suggestion to those who believe they have a right to the Eucharist, without any indication of authentic conversion on their own part?

 

[McCall1981]

Given the content of some comments, even on this thread alone, do you really foresee this a satisfactory suggestion to those who believe they have a right to the Eucharist, without any indication of authentic conversion on their own part?

I think that observing reactions to an idea like this one, could probably go a long way towards gauging which groups want legitimate, orthodox “pastoral solutions”, and which just want full approval of divorce/remarriage.

 

[JimG]

I guess I am just not seeing the problem. My aunt lived for years in a long term, happy, but invalid second marriage. She never felt rejected by the Church or her parish. She went to Mass every Sunday, did not receive communion, was good friends with the pastor, was active in the parish and friends with all of its members. When her husband became ill and permanently impotent, she went to confession and started going to communion again. She did not allow her situation to estrange her from the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Given the content of some comments, even on this thread alone, do you really foresee this a satisfactory suggestion to those who believe they have a right to the Eucharist, without any indication of authentic conversion on their own part?

I’ll say it again, whatever the Church decides on communion for those in irregular situations, I will submit to in humble obedience.

To answer your question, will this process alone be satisfactory? I can’t say, but I don’t believe that genuine on-going conversion is possible without some mechanism to accompany couples in this situation. Again conversion is an on-going process. The current process seems to be “convert, and we’ll talk about it” as an answer to the question “I want to convert, please help”. It almost sounds like a classic catch 22.

Now a question from me. In the example I gave, and assuming that the penitent genuinely wants to convert but there is difficulty in ending the conjugal relationship because the non-Catholic party isn’t in agreement, what do you suggest? Do you not think that there is already a conversion from being in a confessional, in tears, asking for help? Remember, in the example, there are children involved.

You keep coming back to people asking for the Eucharist as their “right” without a genuine conversion of the heart.

It is not those people I am talking about.

 

[OraLabora]

I guess I am just not seeing the problem. My aunt lived for years in a long term, happy, but invalid second marriage. She never felt rejected by the Church or her parish. She went to Mass every Sunday, did not receive communion, was good friends with the pastor, was active in the parish and friends with all of its members. When her husband became ill and permanently impotent, she went to confession and started going to communion again. She did not allow her situation to estrange her from the Church.

Everyone is different. Differently gifted, differently challenged.

 

[JimG]

Everyone is different. Differently gifted, differently challenged.

Well yes, I agree. I just don’t see creating a problem where there need not be one. It was years before I even realized my aunt’s situation because she never spoke of her prior marriage. Once I asked her why she did not go to communion (an impertinent question in itself!) and she explained it to me.

 

[Tigg]

I’ll say it again, whatever the Church decides on communion for those in irregular situations, I will submit to in humble obedience.

To answer your question, will this process alone be satisfactory? I can’t say, but I don’t believe that genuine on-going conversion is possible without some mechanism to accompany couples in this situation. Again conversion is an on-going process. The current process seems to be “convert, and we’ll talk about it” as an answer to the question “I want to convert, please help”. It almost sounds like a classic catch 22.

Now a question from me. In the example I gave, and assuming that the penitent genuinely wants to convert but there is difficulty in ending the conjugal relationship because the non-Catholic party isn’t in agreement, what do you suggest? Do you not think that there is already a conversion from being in a confessional, in tears, asking for help? Remember, in the example, there are children involved.

You keep coming back to people asking for the Eucharist as their “right” without a genuine conversion of the heart.

It is not those people I am talking about.

Well, we are all sinners. We sin, and repent, and sin again and hopefully with grace become holier as we grow in love and fidelity to Christ. This is our spiritual walk and in a sense, could be called an on-going conversion. But in your example above, (speaking hypothetically and just for myself) I can honestly say I would not consider it a true conversion of heart if I placed another (even my spouse) before Christ if it meant I was in a situation of an on-going and sinful contradiction. I mean - do you please your spouse or come into sanctifying grace? Put bluntly, these are the choices, correct? If I, for whatever reason, could not bring myself to the sacrifice it took to wholly receive sacramental absolution, then I would find it rather pointless. I’m truly trying to understand this proposal as a pilgrimage toward righteousness, but if ones life does not change…where is the goodwill of the heart and the intent toward penitence?

 

[Ender]

A penitent arrives and wants to come back to the Church after many years of absence. (S)he had a failed first marriage early on. It could be for any number of non or reduced culpability…

Let me rephrase this by asking: under what conditions is adultery permitted? Is this woman in an adulterous relationship with her second husband? Yes or no? Plainly the church says she is, so it seems you are suggesting that, given a sufficiency of circumstances, adultery should be acceptable. I don’t deny the painfulness of the situation but we need to be very clear about what is being suggested here.

This is what the clergy in the trenches are asking for. How to deal with cases like this in the confessional or the parish office. How to find a path to welcome these people back in the Church and set them on the path to reconciliation and conversion. So how would you deal with the penitent in this case, if you were on the other side of the grille in the confessional?

I think Fr. Michelet’s suggestion has merit. It recognizes the difficult situation in which these people find themselves and offers them help without crossing the line by offering them communion. Anything short of that may be acceptable, but that is not.

This particular discussion is not about receiving communion, it is about a penitential path.

No one opposes the creation of a penitential path…so long as it doesn’t lead to communion until the irregular situation preventing it today is ended.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

No one opposes the creation of a penitential path…so long as it doesn’t lead to communion until the irregular situation preventing it today is ended.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Although I understand this proposal to be a return to the practice as done in the early Church whereby the elements of the sacrament of penance are done in different stages, I am still befuddled. It is making the claim that “although they would not be permitted to receive Eucharistic communion, the penitents would not find themselves *excluded *from sacramental life, because their journey of conversion would itself be a sacrament and source of grace.” And further it states, “one would do penance until the moment of full conversion” when one would then be made ready for sacramental reconciliation. I simply do not understand how one does penance for their sins while simultaneously continuing in the same state of sin. Where is the renunciation and abstinence of sin?

My only answer to this is that God alone knows the heart and the sincerity of the continued effort of the sinner.