Vatican’s legal chief says desire to change enough for Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Havard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Havard

Guest
ROME- Catholics who find themselves in what the Church considers “non-legitimate” situations, such as being divorced and civilly remarried, can receive Communion as long as they want to change their situation but cannot act on their desire because doing so would lead to further sin.

That’s the final word, at least according to the Vatican’s key interpreter of the law, Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, who was appointed by Benedict XVI in 2007 as President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

According to the Vatican’s constitution, this office’s work “consists mainly in interpreting the laws of the Church.”

However, per his own words, he wrote his new book The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia not as a canon law expert but to try to “unpack [Amoris’s] rich doctrinal and pastoral message.”

[More…] cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/14/vaticans-legal-chief-says-desire-change-enough-communion/
 
Having read the article, it’s hard to see this as the “final word”.
 
Canonist Edward Peters comments:
“A few weeks ago, Cdl Muller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gave an interview that upheld the traditional practice of withholding holy Communion from divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Now, Cdl Coccopalmeria has published a booklet in which he apparently says that, subject only to the toothless requirement of ‘discerning their situation’, such Catholics may and should be admitted to holy Communion.
In other words, the Church’s arguably two highest-ranking cardinals in the areas of canonical interpretation and the protection of doctrine and morals are in public, plain, and diametric opposition with each other concerning a crucial canonico-sacramental practice.”
Click to expand...
Source
 
Like the Maltese and more liberal for want of a better word, interpretations of Amoris Latetia, I just do not understand how, with all due respect, this is reconcilable with Church doctrine. The Cardinal here, unless I’m misunderstanding him, even seems to go beyond just the divorced and the remarried, but to irregular situations on a more broader basis. This is mind blowing.
 
Havard said:
ROME- Catholics who find themselves in what the Church considers “non-legitimate” situations, such as being divorced and civilly remarried, can receive Communion as long as they want to change their situation but cannot act on their desire because doing so would lead to further sin.

That’s the final word, at least according to the Vatican’s key interpreter of the law, Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, who was appointed by Benedict XVI in 2007 as President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

According to the Vatican’s constitution, this office’s work “consists mainly in interpreting the laws of the Church.”

However, per his own words, he wrote his new book The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia not as a canon law expert but to try to “unpack [Amoris’s] rich doctrinal and pastoral message.”

[More…] cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/14/vaticans-legal-chief-says-desire-change-enough-communion/
Click to expand...
Does this theology apply to all sin?

Sweet!!
 
This will do nothing to resolve the division but merely make it worse. One by one everybody is declaring themselves and choosing their side. Not actually a bad thing come to think of it.
 
JimG said:
Canonist Edward Peters comments:

Source
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. This comment is particularly compelling:
In other words, the Church’s arguably two highest-ranking cardinals in the areas of canonical interpretation and the protection of doctrine and morals are in public, plain, and diametric opposition with each other concerning a crucial canonico-sacramental practice.
Click to expand...
This division cannot stand.
Click to expand...
 
All I have to say to this whole mess is:

Yeah.
Right.
Whatever.

Until there’s clarity from Rome, or a definition ex cathedra, I’m sticking with what the Church has always taught and practiced.

This kind of confusion is helping no one.
 
porthos11 said:
All I have to say to this whole mess is:

Until there’s clarity from Rome, or a definition ex cathedra, I’m sticking with what the Church has always taught and practiced .
Click to expand...
Even if no one else does?
 
Quoted without comment.
From the 13th session of the Council of Trent:
“CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”
Click to expand...
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Even if no one else does?
Click to expand...
If no one else does, then maybe I should reconsider whether the Catholic Church is at all what it claims to be.

Because if it isn’t, there’s no point in remaining Christian. If the Church is wrong on this point, she has no authority on anything else. So if this doesn’t blow over and the Church clearly teaches error, then screw everything else, because it’s off to hedonism for me. The only thing that will keep my behaviour in check is civil law.

Fortunately, we have only squabbling theologians and individual bishops who don’t agree with each other, none of which are governed by the Church’s infallibility.

I fully expect this mess to sort itself out, as Christ will not allow the Church to teach error. But I also fully expect only after a great deal of damage has been done. A grievous wound would have been inflicted on the Church and will take decades to heal. The prelates, clerics and laymen behind it will have to answer to God for what they’ve done.
 
JimG said:
Canonist Edward Peters comments:

“A few weeks ago, Cdl Muller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gave an interview that upheld the traditional practice of withholding holy Communion from divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Now, Cdl Coccopalmeria has published a booklet in which he apparently says that, subject only to the toothless requirement of ‘discerning their situation’, such Catholics may and should be admitted to holy Communion.
In other words, the Church’s arguably two highest-ranking cardinals in the areas of canonical interpretation and the protection of doctrine and morals are in public, plain, and diametric opposition with each other concerning a crucial canonico-sacramental practice.”

Source
Click to expand...
This is so confusing…? I have a daughter who is affected by this…!
Naturally, she is wondering…
 
porthos11 said:
If the Church is wrong on this point, she has no authority on anything else. So if this doesn’t blow over and the Church clearly teaches error, then screw everything else, because it’s off to hedonism for me. The only thing that will keep my behaviour in check is civil law.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a terrible attitude.

Even atheists are capable of living balanced, sober lives.

Hedonism, in the long run, only leads to an inability to satisfy desire and more suffering in the long-run. It doesn’t make you happy.

Happiness comes from deeper things than over-indulging in short-term pleasures.
 
Justin_Swanton said:
This will do nothing to resolve the division but merely make it worse. One by one everybody is declaring themselves and choosing their side. Not actually a bad thing come to think of it.
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest: there’s a lot of people today who Communion who should not be for any number of reasons. I don’t think there’s too many people who are saying “well, I’ve remained true to this teaching, and now that one book is coming out saying the opposite, I’ll start going!”.
 
petra22 said:
This is so confusing…? I have a daughter who is affected by this…!
Naturally, she is wondering…
Click to expand...
Yes, I am sorry that many like your daughter are confused by the current situation. We can only pray that clarity comes soon.
 
petra22 said:
This is so confusing…? I have a daughter who is affected by this…!
Naturally, she is wondering…
Click to expand...
Hello,

Well, now as in the past (whether it was 5 or 50 years ago), she has to discuss the matter with a local priest. On her own, she can consult the Scriptures and the catechism.

Dan
 
Vouthon said:
I think that’s a terrible attitude.

Even atheists are capable of living balanced, sober lives.

Hedonism, in the long run, only leads to an inability to satisfy desire and more suffering in the long-run. It doesn’t make you happy.

Happiness comes from deeper things than over-indulging in short-term pleasures.
Click to expand...
Says the Catholic. Of course I believe it. I’m a Catholic and the Church has not fallen and I believe and accept all it teaches. It’s never going to fall, because if it does, then it’s worth snot and is not worth believing in a SINGLE thing it says, from fornication to contraception to the Incarnation and Redemption to the Trinity itself.

that’s what’s at stake. That’s why the Church will sort this mess out and I am confident of it. This means all the stuff I said are purely hypothetical, but even if it were to come true, not you or the Catholic Church can tell me hedonism will be wrong, because there is no moral standard to tell me so. I have only myself and civil law to set boundaries, and live with the rewards or consequences of my actions.

Right now, I have the Rock of the Catholic Church to live by. If the Church falls, there is only myself, and no one can tell me what’s “terrible” or not.

That’s why the Church CANNOT be wrong, and this mess will get ironed out. Those responsible for it (I’m not naming names) will answer to God for their role in it.
 
porthos11 said:
If no one else does, then maybe I should reconsider whether the Catholic Church is at all what it claims to be.

Because if it isn’t, there’s no point in remaining Christian. If the Church is wrong on this point, she has no authority on anything else. So if this doesn’t blow over and the Church clearly teaches error, then screw everything else, because it’s off to hedonism for me. The only thing that will keep my behaviour in check is civil law.

Fortunately, we have only squabbling theologians and individual bishops who don’t agree with each other, none of which are governed by the Church’s infallibility.

I fully expect this mess to sort itself out, as Christ will not allow the Church to teach error. But I also fully expect only after a great deal of damage has been done. A grievous wound would have been inflicted on the Church and will take decades to heal. The prelates, clerics and laymen behind it will have to answer to God for what they’ve done.
Click to expand...
I feel much the same way. This cannot stand.
It will split the church and for many, myself included it could cause loss of faith.
But we also have to not be reactionary. My faith is damaged by several issues the past few years. But I don’t take my faith lightly. I’d imagine that s issue will be resolved within this pontificate or the next. Something that most of us will live to see.

No doubt though, our Church is as fractured as our country right now…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top