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

[JimG]

I dont understand how that would grant a right to communion. I personally dont understand why doing benign things like occasionally missing Sunday mass results in mortal sin. After this AL saga, I have had a hard time readily submitting to the church’s authority intellectually in all things with the child like trust I had before. Yet, I have never felt the need to set aside the church’s teachings and approach communion based on my subjective hunch that not showing up on all Sundays is not as serious as murder or abortion or fornication. I don’t understand how a person’s subjective conclusion that they are right and the church wrong on a certain position entitles them to approach sacraments contrary to the church’s own positions.

Well, we have a positive duty to worship God. It’s one of the ten commandments as well as a precept of the Church. So deliberately skipping Sunday Mass is not benign.

I entirely agree with you that substituting one’s subjective opinion in place of Church teaching is not the right thing to do.

 

[St_Francis]

You’ve forgotten the original point:

Because the last two Popes, a lot of Cardinals, priests and irregulars otherwise model Catholics realise that many invalid first marriages may never be resolvable by Tribunals.

How do they know 1. the number that may never be resolvable, and 2. that many of them would be resolved in the direction of declaring nullity?

The consider it an affront to otherwise acceptable Catholics that they be isolated from Communion for life as it is not an award for outward purity but food for the journey and they are in fact likely in a state of grace despite appearances.

How do they know the people involved are “likely” in a state of grace? It seems like everyone is making a lot of assumptions here.

The fact is that in eating and drinking, one can condemn oneself. Moreover, it seems very wrong for the Church to distribute the Body and Blood of Our Lord to those who “persevere in a state of **manifest **grave sin.”

Sure you don’t agree.
But please don’t pretend all the above are either inexperienced, unknowledgable about the faith or of the devil.

Considering the activities of many priests over the past few decades, such as massive rejection of HV, I don’t think it is unreasonable to be suspicious of them.

Given that, it is clearly a complicated issue which is why multiple and interminable topics re AL exist on CAF.

Well, now we get down to some nuts and bolts.

If it is complicated, why was this new discipline anniounced in a footnote which the Pope later said he didn’t remember?

If it is complicated, why is there no clarity provided?

If it is complicated, why are no explanations given when people, including some equally experienced, knowledgeable, and holy bishops and cardinals, ask for elucidation?

Surely one would have to be blind deaf and dumb to assert, other than rhetorically or blowing steam, that the issue is “simple”.

Well, it certainly isn’t now.

As to the sentence you quoted, why was that not simple? Irregular marriage unresolved by the Tribunal with continued sexual activity? No Communion.

Some people felt saddened by this instead of accepting the situation? Some people felt “excluded”? So now we have to totally complicate the situation, say outrageous things like if people feel at peace about it, they can receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord, with the very real possibility of condemning themselves to Hell for it? Or after talking with a very-possibly totally overworked priest alone at a large parish about… what? that has not been made clear? —they can receive?

Everyone makes up these unrealistic scenarios about men so depressed the only way they can carry on is to have sex, or men with neurological damage or addictions problems rendering them violent, or people whose records were all destroyed in earthquakes… and all these poor, poor people who *are forced to be alone for the rest of their lives! *Well, gee, might as well allow same-sex couples to receive and keep their jobs, as long as they “feel at peace” about their situation, since otherwise they too would be condemned to live their lives alone. Too bad about people who live their entire lives alone simply because they can’t marry even once.

There are stories on the other side too. Stories of men abandoned with their children who did not seek out a replacement wife. Women whose husbands partially destroyed themselves who didn’t go off and marry someone else. And people in irregular marriages who followed the previous rules without complaining, offering up their suffering.

And given that Pope Francis has already ruled on this and given directives now being implemented in varied fashion throughout the Dioceses of the world that contradict this simplistic solution,

What? When? He ruled on this? He gave directives? Where are they? Why has this not made the news anywhere? Can you link them?

then those who object do seem to be on the wrong side of history.

Who cares about history? It is personal opinion which is the right side of history, whatever that even is. I would have thought that any Catholic would want to be on the right side of *God. *

Anyone who continues to think the answer is “simple” is then hardly any different from a “flat-earther” in their opposition to reality.

Srsly? You are so well-educated and have such a good understanding of all this, and you stoop to ad hominem responses?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How do they know 1. the number that may never be resolvable,

I suggest you ask them. But given they get all the centralised stats and personal reports of the Tribunal lawyers involved, and the Popes themselves were themselves highly experienced Pastors, the answers to your “confusion” seems pretty obvious to common sense.

and 2. that many of them would be resolved in the direction of declaring nullity?/

Obviously on the same prudential grounds that AL and the Accompanyment/Discernment process rests.
If you don’t accept this reality I can understand your confusion here.

How do they know the people involved are “likely” in a state of grace? It seems like everyone is making a lot of assumptions here.

Its a common prudential observation of experienced pastors and conclusion of respected moral theologians.
And, oh yes, its also the clear view of Pope Francis in a Magisterial document.
One sign that sticks out to experienced pastors is that such persons are typical quiet, humble and loyal Catholics in every other area of their lives. This is typical of people caught up in situations beyond their full control.

Its also an obviousness of life to many loyal Catholics, though not all.

You are free to disagree with the above.
But please give us a rest from saying it cannot be a valid Catholic position.
It clearly is no matter how much you personally abhor it.

So things are obviously “complicated”.
Obviously those who do not want to assume the burdens of our fellow Catholic irregulars will “simplify” and walk by…on the other side of the road.

 

[Ginny89]

Well, we have a positive duty to worship God. It’s one of the ten commandments as well as a precept of the Church. So deliberately skipping Sunday Mass is not benign.

I entirely agree with you that substituting one’s subjective opinion in place of Church teaching is not the right thing to do.

My point is that there is a difference between being able to filly wrap your mind around something the church teaches and OBEDIENCE. The two dont have to coexist for someone who has already fundamentally submitted to the authority of the church. So even if a person sincerely cant see for himself how or why the second marriage should preclude him from communion, this does not bar him from obeying the church regardless.

Some people have tried to argue that invincible ignorance can make someone free to receive communion. But unless that ignorance concerns lack of knowledge of the CHURCH’s position, how would it permit someone to say: I know what I am doing contradicts what the church teaches but since I believe I am right, I can go ahead and receive the sacraments??? For example, I can personally see the logic of demanding worship but not one of demanding attendance every Sunday under pain of mortal sin. However, I know this is the church’s position. I am not going to cast it aside and substitute it for my own. So I will still try to attend on Sundays and when I fail, I will go to confession. The issue is, for someone who has made a genuine profession of faith, your imperfect intellectual alignment with the church’s mind is no obstacle to obedience.

I have told before that I have for the first time doubted the church’s claim of authority over my will which I gave freely before. But even then, when I found it hard to go to mass after my faith was wounded, I dont remember thinking that because I doubted the church I should be able to go ahead and receive communion without confession for missing all those Sundays and a genuine purpose of ammendment. I just cant help but see people who push this as having on some level, perhaps unwittingly, withdrawn that assent of faith that allows one to obey even when you disagree!

 

[St_Francis]

I suggest you ask them. But given they get all the centralised stats and personal reports of the Tribunal lawyers involved, and the Popes themselves were themselves highly experienced Pastors, the answers to your “confusion” seems pretty obvious to common sense.

Obviously on the same prudential grounds that AL and the Accompanyment/Discernment process rests.
If you don’t accept this reality I can understand your confusion here.

Its a common prudential observation of experienced pastors and conclusion of respected moral theologians.
And, oh yes, its also the clear view of Pope Francis in a Magisterial document.
One sign that sticks out to experienced pastors is that such persons are typical quiet, humble and loyal Catholics in every other area of their lives. This is typical of people caught up in situations beyond their full control.

Its also an obviousness of life to many loyal Catholics, though not all.

You are free to disagree with the above.
But please give us a rest from saying it cannot be a valid Catholic position.

In what way is D&R people can talk with a priest and then (maybe? erratically? if you are tearful or argumentative enough?) receive the Eucharist “a position”?

It bothers me a lot that the bishops have not clamped down on pro-abortion politicians, too.

It clearly is no matter how much you personally abhor it.

How clearly is it a position? Something tossed off in a later-forgotten footnote? Something with no criteria for how itnis to be done?

If the Pope had said that the internal forum would allow for reception of the Eucharist, that would have made sense. That would have been clear. That would have beeen a prudential move that a person could at least understand.

But as it is, the Church’s apparent handling of annullments has already eroded that understanding of marriage. You can even see comments like, “don 't worry, you can probably get an annullment,” on CAF. Now people will just say, “leave your wife for the other woman, you can just talk to a priest afterwards.”

So things are obviously “complicated”.
Obviously those who do not want to assume the burdens of our fellow Catholic irregulars will “simplify” and walk by…on the other side of the road.

What does this mean, “assume the burdens of our fellow Catholics”? You I’m complaining because the cost of hosts and wine will go up?

You rest on the Pope’s words that the Eucharist is food for sinners, not a reward for the perfect. Why then do we keep anyone at all from receiving? We should just let anyone at all receive!

 

[commenter]

I think people are forgetting that the Church’s doctrine and practice related to Marriage, Confession, and Eucharist foster (in the long run) happiness for people. This means not only protecting happiness for bad people but happiness for **good **people. We keep hearing that Catholics who are divorced and remarried are all “good people” who are ****exemplary ****Catholics in family life, parish life, and their spiritual life, except for this minor technicality of not being able to go to Communion. (I would like to visit your part of the country, in fact, I would live in whatever diocese and parish where this research was done and so many exemplary Catholics thrive).

Even assuming divorced and remarried persons are all “good people” (I suppose they are as good as me anyway) so what? Church “restrictions” help “good people” too. All of Christian conversion has been labelled by someone or other as restriction or technicality of some sort.

You can finagle your way out of the gym class requirement. But then you miss out on physical development. You can claim exemption from required immunization (a bureaucratic technicality) against some disease. Maybe if you pull strings, you can get your kid exempted from that, on the basis of “rights”. You might “win”. But then your child can get the disease.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In what way is D&R people can talk with a priest and then (maybe? erratically? if you are tearful or argumentative enough?) receive the Eucharist “a position”?

It bothers me a lot that the bishops have not clamped down on pro-abortion politicians, too.

How clearly is it a position? Something tossed off in a later-forgotten footnote? Something with no criteria for how itnis to be done?

If the Pope had said that the internal forum would allow for reception of the Eucharist, that would have made sense. That would have been clear. That would have beeen a prudential move that a person could at least understand.

But as it is, the Church’s apparent handling of annullments has already eroded that understanding of marriage. You can even see comments like, “don 't worry, you can probably get an annullment,” on CAF. Now people will just say, “leave your wife for the other woman, you can just talk to a priest afterwards.”

What does this mean, “assume the burdens of our fellow Catholics”? You I’m complaining because the cost of hosts and wine will go up?

You rest on the Pope’s words that the Eucharist is food for sinners, not a reward for the perfect. Why then do we keep anyone at all from receiving? We should just let anyone at all receive!

I have made my point re the original topic Francis.
You are now merely sounding off on pedantic argumentative tangents, based on wild and subjective alternate facts that have been done to death elsewhere. They reflect no more than your set and still unsubstantiated biases. Such “discussions” are pointless and enlighten nobody, cathartic though they are for you.

Re the “forgotten” footnote…Pope Francis’s facetious irony seems to have thundered over the silence of your thinking.
If your involvement on these topics elicits the bitterness that increasingly seems to seep through your posts maybe it would be better to spend the time praying for wayward Pope Francis instead and recovering a more healthy disposition on the matters.

 

[Mongo]

I have made my point re the original topic Francis.
You are now merely sounding off on pedantic argumentative tangents, based on wild and subjective alternate facts that have been done to death elsewhere. They reflect no more than your set and still unsubstantiated biases. Such “discussions” are pointless and enlighten nobody, cathartic though they are for you.

Re the “forgotten” footnote…Pope Francis’s facetious irony seems to have thundered over the silence of your thinking.
If your involvement on these topics elicits the bitterness that increasingly seems to seep through your posts maybe it would be better to spend the time praying for wayward Pope Francis instead and recovering a more healthy disposition on the matters.

Why are you confrontational and condescending to everyone on here?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why are you confrontational and condescending to everyone on here?

A somewhat confrontational contribution, yes?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why are you confrontational and condescending to everyone on here?

Perhaps, as a loyal Catholic, I find the contributors poor estimation of Pope Francis’s intelligence, insights and leadership disrespectful and worthy of confronting.

Confronting is not an intrinsic evil after all.

 

[PluniaZ]

Perhaps, as a loyal Catholic, I find the contributors poor estimation of Pope Francis’s intelligence, insights and leadership disrespectful and worthy of confronting.

Confronting is not an intrinsic evil after all.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Mongo]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

You find condescension praiseworthy?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Perhaps, as a loyal Catholic, I find the contributors poor estimation of Pope Francis’s intelligence, insights and leadership disrespectful and worthy of confronting.

Confronting is not an intrinsic evil after all.

I don’t think so. You tend to do so when arguing contrary to something traditionally held. And in situations that have to do with sexuality.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Every generation has its Cardinal Bourke and more extreme rigorist saints who only provide one side of the whole picture which is bigger. And so we can all cherry pick texts to suit our personal opinions and points.

And if we look at Jerome’s complete text, in this rarely ever quoted lesser work, I think we see other things that would today be regarded with abhorrence by the Church Universal.

“If she leaves her second husband and desires to be reconciled with her first, she cannot be so now… her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord.” St Jerome.

So here we have a woman who leaves her husband because he’s a philanderer, an adulterer, a sodomite. And if she co-habits even briefly with another guy who then leaves her … and she attempts (unlikely but Jerome himself posits this) to return to her only true marriage/husband…this too is wrong even if her true husband agrees - because she is defiled.
I think her Sodomite husband might be somewhat more defiled than she but Jerome overlooks this as a reason, presumably because he is a man.

Its an interesting question as to whether Jerome was canonised because of such “pastoral” rigour or in spite of it. Canonisation of course is no guarantee that any particular words of a saint are in accord with the mind of the Church Universal.

I do not believe this is true Catholic Doctrine but is excessively rigorist, misogynist and hypocritical. In short, erroneous.

And if the Church did not accept the above from Jerome it somewhat calls into question the certainty you have attached to the rest of his over the top rigorism.

So excuse me if I suggest St Jerome’s rigorist interpretation of Scripture (let alone the Deposit of Faith) is a bit skewed in this area (heavily Mosaic Old Testamentish) and he was canonised in spite of this sincere but mistaken “exegesis/teaching” on these points.

 

[FollowChrist34]

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/

The ‘laws of the Church / doctrine / dogma’ is the skeleton of the Body of Christ. His blood is mercy.

Amoris Laetitia, allowed to stand as is, will break Christ’s back.

His anguish is our anguish.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think so. You tend to do so when arguing contrary to something traditionally held. And in situations that have to do with sexuality.

You believe then that Pope Francis is arguing contrary to what is traditionally held, especially situations to do with sexuality ?
I do no more than robustly explore likely theological support for his pastoral directives and conclusions and callout silly strawman rhetoric that wilfully misrepresents his words.

If you and StFrancis have difficulties accepting Pope Francis’s views he still needs to be respected and his views accurately presented.

It would be even better that untrained laypersons here without anything like his theological education, pastoral experience, intelligence and authority…would refrain from making silly comments like Pope Francis is at odds with Traditional Doctrine. It is not a judgement anyone here has the octane to make or imply.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You believe then that Pope Francis is arguing contrary to what is traditionally held, especially situations to do with sexuality ?
I do no more than robustly explore likely theological support for his pastoral directives and conclusions and callout silly strawman rhetoric that wilfully misrepresents his words.

If you and StFrancis have difficulties accepting Pope Francis’s views he still needs to be respected and his views accurately presented.

It would be even better that untrained laypersons here without anything like his theological education, pastoral experience, intelligence and authority…would refrain from making silly comments like Pope Francis is at odds with Traditional Doctrine. It is not a judgement anyone here has the octane to make or imply.

I think there is no way I think you and the pope are on the same page.

 

[pnewton]

Regardless of culpability, one can only be married to one spouse.

Who was the spouse of the patriarch Jacob? Leah? Rachel?

 

[pnewton]

I dont understand how that would grant a right to communion. I personally dont understand why doing benign things like occasionally missing Sunday mass results in mortal sin.

I do not believe it always does. Some do not understand that it is a mortal sin. Some are just weak and miss without conscious intent. It is still sin that needs to be confessed, but I do not believe it to be damning in many cases.

 

[pnewton]

Every generation has its Cardinal Bourke and more extreme rigorist saints who only provide one side of the whole picture which is bigger. And so we can all cherry pick texts to suit our personal opinions and points.

Every issue also has its Cardinal Kaspar, to grab one name, that pushes the limits. The conflict between the theological liberal and the theological conservative is healthy to avoid stagnation and allow the Church to continue to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things. That’s why I think it premature to be too sure of anyone’s position, or at least to fail and acknowledge the other side, or engage in such things as labeling either as heretical or schismatic. We simply cannot think in those terms at this point when the Church has not threshed Amoris Laetitia out.