Vatican official: adultery incompatible with reception of Holy Communion [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On the subject of this thread’s topic, the Pope has made his own position clear in a recent interview. These paragraphs shed a great deal of light on all that has happened in the last couple of months. Emphases are mine.

“In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution.

“The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptised, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give Communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact. Thus, let us open the doors a bit more.”

The Pope continued: “Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? ‘No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?’ The testimony of a man and a woman saying ‘my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on’. Anything more Christian than that?

Fine. I know where this is all headed. I have a personal fondness for the Pope, besides respecting his office and remaining attached to it. But I know what the worst case scenario is and just how far it can go. Think the last synod was bad? Wait for the next one.
 
Justin_Swanton said:
On the subject of this thread’s topic, the Pope has made his own position clear in a recent interview. These paragraphs shed a great deal of light on all that has happened in the last couple of months. Emphases are mine.

“In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution.

“The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptised, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give Communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact. Thus, let us open the doors a bit more.”

The Pope continued: “Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? ‘No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?’ The testimony of a man and a woman saying ‘my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on’. Anything more Christian than that?

Fine. I know where this is all headed. I have a personal fondness for the Pope, besides respecting his office and remaining attached to it. But I know what the worst case scenario is and just how far it can go. Think the last synod was bad? Wait for the next one.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you have so much faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And issue that has not been fully addressed by the Church is undecided, and the issue of the practice within the Orthodox Church is one of those issues.

That is not an indication that the Church would adopt the practice; but any wholesale rejection of the possibility sets one up for the potential that one is wrong in their suppositions.

And not to make too fine a point of it, but one of the brightest theologians today had at one point posited that people in irregular marriages might be admitted to Communion, a position he subsequently clearly withdrew; so it is a bit surprising that others might ask the same question, particularly as they are not in the same league as that theologian.

Who was he? His last name at the time was Ratzinger. So perhaps before we go out and hang Cardinals and bishops for daring to broach the possibility, we might reflect on that, and understand the matter is neither as cut and dried or as simple as some posters make it.

I am not expecting the Church to wholesale adopt the Orthodox practice. But neither do I find the Church’s consideration of the matter to be scandalous. Nor is it clearly outside some of the current parameters of the Church’s accepted moral theology, until such time as the Church speaks on that matter specifically.
 
otjm said:
Glad to see you have so much faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And issue that has not been fully addressed by the Church is undecided, and the issue of the practice within the Orthodox Church is one of those issues.

That is not an indication that the Church would adopt the practice; but any wholesale rejection of the possibility sets one up for the potential that one is wrong in their suppositions.

And not to make too fine a point of it, but one of the brightest theologians today had at one point posited that people in irregular marriages might be admitted to Communion, a position he subsequently clearly withdrew; so it is a bit surprising that others might ask the same question, particularly as they are not in the same league as that theologian.

Who was he? His last name at the time was Ratzinger. So perhaps before we go out and hang Cardinals and bishops for daring to broach the possibility, we might reflect on that, and understand the matter is neither as cut and dried or as simple as some posters make it.

I am not expecting the Church to wholesale adopt the Orthodox practice. But neither do I find the Church’s consideration of the matter to be scandalous. Nor is it clearly outside some of the current parameters of the Church’s accepted moral theology, until such time as the Church speaks on that matter specifically.
Click to expand...
So why is it that they are asking a question that has not only been definitively answered throughout the history of the Church, but also answered by the Synod in 1980, and repeatedly by the CDF since then, and up through to the present.
 
otjm said:
I am not expecting the Church to wholesale adopt the Orthodox practice. But neither do I find the Church’s consideration of the matter to be scandalous. Nor is it clearly outside some of the current parameters of the Church’s accepted moral theology, until such time as the Church speaks on that matter specifically.
Click to expand...
I believe Christ and the Church have already ruled on the matter of scandal. But if I’m hearing things correctly, we have yet to hear of the final decision on what exactly is scandalous. Is this your take as well?
 
ProVobis said:
I believe Christ and the Church have already ruled on the matter of scandal. But if I’m hearing things correctly, we have yet to hear of the final decision on what exactly is scandalous. Is this your take as well?
Click to expand...
Scandal is an interesting term.

There are a number of Catholics who are scandalized by the documents of Vatican 2 - does that mean that the Church should not publish them?

There are people who are scandalized by the secular reports of what Pope Francis has said since he was made Pope; does that mean he should never speak to the press? And as an aside, I was just reading an article in Crisis Magazine, and three separate posters referred to Pope Francis as narcissistic because of his repeated comments to the press… What are we to make of that opinion?

If the Church, in its wisdom should determine that within moral law as it has developed to date, there is room for some form of treatment of people in irregular marriages in a similar manner as the Orthodox do, will that give scandal to some?

Most likely, yes; it will do so because the people who are scandalized have a weak, or inadequate understanding of the moral law. Should the Church then not make the change? Or should the Church make the change but not make it public?

Of the latter, that type of change would eventually come out so attempting to keep it secret simply won’t work.

Do we really believe that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from error in matters of faith and morals, or don’t we? And if we do, how does that fit in with the Church speaking truth, and thereby scandalizing people?
 
McCall1981 said:
So why is it that they are asking a question that has not only been definitively answered throughout the history of the Church, but also answered by the Synod in 1980, and repeatedly by the CDF since then, and up through to the present.
Click to expand...
They who?

And is it possible that there are more nuances to the issues brought up in the synod than the average Catholic, not having a B.A. or a B.S. in theology, let alone a PhD, would simply not have enough education and understanding to sort through?

And why do you presume that there is only one question before the synod? Or is it just that you have attached to this one question? And why do you assume that if the answer is “no”, that therefore there is nothing else to discuss about it?

Other things to discuss, assuming that the answer to receiving Communion is “No”: just off the top of my head, there is the issue of having a significant number of people in irregular marriages; and how do we move them from where they are today (which most likely means not attending Mass regularly) to attending Mass but not receiving? How do we minister to them - and do we have a duty to reach out to them, or do we simply say “they chose their bed, now let them sleep in it”?
 
otjm said:
Scandal is an interesting term.

Do we really believe that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from error in matters of faith and morals, or don’t we? And if we do, how does that fit in with the Church speaking truth, and thereby scandalizing people?
Click to expand...
Jesus spoke the truth about His Body and Blood in John 6, and allowed the listeners to shake their heads and walk away. Truth will always come forth, despite the unwillingness of others to accept or understand it. There are voluminous threads on CAF about lawful practices of the Church that have scandalized many, and I think they believe that by ‘much saying’ and publishing their two cents, their propaganda will bring about the change they ardently desire, despite it being promulgated by the Magisterium. :cool: Is it not true, that THEY themselves are scandalizing others to disbelieve the Church, and to adopt THEIR personal idea of right and wrong?
 
otjm said:
Other things to discuss, assuming that the answer to receiving Communion is “No”: just off the top of my head, there is the issue of having a significant number of people in irregular marriages; and how do we move them from where they are today (which most likely means not attending Mass regularly) to ** attending Mass but not receiving?** How do we minister to them - and do we have a duty to reach out to them, or do we simply say “they chose their bed, now let them sleep in it”?
Click to expand...
Where is the difficulty with that? In some cultures many have already accepted coming to Mass and not receiving. In fact, in the Spanish and Polish Masses I’ve attended half of the congregation remains in their pews, some in large blocks.

BTW, that last sentence was a very sick pun, if that was your intention.
 
otjm said:
They who?
Click to expand...
They who raise the possibility that someone who has divorced and remarried may receive communion. This assuredly includes Cardinal Kasper and all those who support him.
And is it possible that there are more nuances to the issues brought up in the synod than the average Catholic, not having a B.A. or a B.S. in theology, let alone a PhD, would simply not have enough education and understanding to sort through?
Click to expand...
It is possible there is life on Mars, but the probability is low. If there are arguments in favor of allowing those in irregular marriage to receive communion why hasn’t someone brought them forth? It doesn’t take a degree in theology to understand the common meaning of words. This issue has been on the table for months. What is notably missing is any argument to support it.
And why do you presume that there is only one question before the synod?
Click to expand...
There are indeed any number of other issues the synod must and will address, but this is clearly the most controversial one and the one that has generated the most heat.
How do we minister to them - and do we have a duty to reach out to them, or do we simply say “they chose their bed, now let them sleep in it”?
Click to expand...
To some extent the answer to your question is yes. Actions have consequences, and while this doesn’t mean we should forget or ignore those in difficult situations neither does it mean that moral law can be “adjusted” to resolve the problems they face.*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. *(JPII, Dives in Misericordia)
Ender
 
Mark121359 said:
Yes…indeed! Excellent point ProVobis. And the post you responded to as well.
Click to expand...
That makes two of you that have an erroneous understanding of theology. Vatican II clearly taught that Protestants DO HAVE the Holy Spirit, although not in the fullness of Catholic truth. Nevertheless, their gifts, which the Spirit bestowed at their baptism, are indeed authentic.

What probably should have been posted is the fact that Protestants, who do attest to guidance by the Spirit, never profess that the Church cannot teach error in faith or morals. That it is a critical point, and it is what we affirm whenever a Catholic states that the Holy Spirit will protect us from error, and fully believes this infallibility with pure faith. It is right and just!
 
Ender said:
They who raise the possibility that someone who has divorced and remarried may receive communion. This assuredly includes Cardinal Kasper and all those who support him.
It is possible there is life on Mars, but the probability is low. If there are arguments in favor of allowing those in irregular marriage to receive communion why hasn’t someone brought them forth? It doesn’t take a degree in theology to understand the common meaning of words. This issue has been on the table for months. What is notably missing is any argument to support it.
There are indeed any number of other issues the synod must and will address, but this is clearly the most controversial one and the one that has generated the most heat.
To some extent the answer to your question is yes. Actions have consequences, and while this doesn’t mean we should forget or ignore those in difficult situations neither does it mean that moral law can be “adjusted” to resolve the problems they face.*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. *(JPII, Dives in Misericordia)
Ender
Click to expand...
👍

The key point here is that we are all still waiting for someone (anyone) to present a theologically valid way that a remarried person can receive communion. This despite the fact that this issue has been discussed not only through out Church history, but at the 1980 Synod, the the over three decades since, over the past year, and at the 2014 Synod. Still waiting…
 
McCall1981 said:
👍

The key point here is that we are all still waiting for someone (anyone) to present a theologically valid way that a remarried person can receive communion. This despite the fact that this issue has been discussed not only through out Church history, but at the 1980 Synod, the the over three decades since, over the past year, and at the 2014 Synod. Still waiting…
Click to expand...
Since the question has been raised for examination in light of the times by the Church experts and theologians of the synod, we are all still waiting to see if there is definitive theological merit to it. The theology comes to light through examnation of questions, not the other way around. The glimpses of thought we have had so far raise the nature of faith in our times, the fruits of the spirit evident in some irregular situations and the possibility of a process that is more suited to the discretion of local Bishops in consultation with local Priests and the couple. From everything that I have read about the question, it is an extension of the theology behind the annulment process.
 
McCall1981 said:
👍

The key point here is that we are all still waiting for someone (anyone) to present a theologically valid way that a remarried person can receive communion. This despite the fact that this issue has been discussed not only through out Church history, but at the 1980 Synod, the the over three decades since, over the past year, and at the 2014 Synod. Still waiting…
Click to expand...
The Pope tries to:

Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?”. The testimony of a man and a woman saying “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on”. Anything more Christian than that?.

Paraphrasing this passage I get the following:

Remarried divorcees who want to be godparents may evince a regret for what they have done, along with a desire to live in God’s will. This regret and desire together constitute an effective repudiation of their affection for sin, even if they do not actually get out of the state of sin. Some states of sin are extremely difficult to get out of: social pressure, financial pressure, long established bonds, all hold one fast. A divorced and remarried couple may be morally incapable of overcoming these obstacles, but by ***wishing ***they could they show enough goodwill to be in a state of grace, without having to do more. In fact, such goodwill (without corresponding action) is an example of what being a Christian is all about.
 
LongingSoul said:
Since the question has been raised for examination in light of the times by the Church experts and theologians of the synod, we are all still waiting to see if there is definitive theological merit to it. The theology comes to light through examnation of questions, not the other way around. The glimpses of thought we have had so far raise the nature of faith in our times, the fruits of the spirit evident in some irregular situations and the possibility of a process that is more suited to the discretion of local Bishops in consultation with local Priests and the couple. From everything that I have read about the question, it is an extension of the theology behind the annulment process.
Click to expand...
Even if we ignore that this question has been examined and ruled on by the Church over and over in the past and only look at it “in light of the times”, it has still been examined and ruled on by a Synod in 1980. If that is too “ancient history”, it has been examined and ruled on by the CDF repeatedly since then, including by a CDF prefect that became Pope. It has been ruled on by the CDF last year, and again just a couple of weeks ago.

And again, if this all ends up being an annulment process adjustment, then I will thank God with all my heart. But as of right now, there are ideas being presented and considered that go beyond that.
 
LongingSoul said:
From everything that I have read about the question, it is an extension of the theology behind the annulment process.
Click to expand...
I guess one could say that.

Having undergone the process myself, I feel that the Church is trying to get a better understanding of the psychology behind marriage, cohabitation, culpability of one’s acts, etc. This can be done without undermining the sacrament of Matrimony.
 
McCall1981 said:
The key point here is that we are all still waiting for someone (anyone) to present a theologically valid way that a remarried person can receive communion. This despite the fact that this issue has been discussed not only through out Church history, but at the 1980 Synod, the the over three decades since, over the past year, and at the 2014 Synod. Still waiting…
Click to expand...
Why, why, why do some place so little trust and faith in the Church and her collective wisdom as it has always stood? As if the new regime is the only body to have ever considered pastoral care. Has the Church not been doing the job of saving souls for countless centuries? Even a pilgrim Church can remain solid as rock and maintain her equilibrium with the past as she recognizes the dangers of trying to adapt moral teaching to current cultural challenges. I’m beginning to get a sense that some are falling into dangerous assumptions – that maybe she’s just had it wrong all along?
 
McCall1981 said:
Even if we ignore that this question has been examined and ruled on by the Church over and over in the past and only look at it “in light of the times”, it has still been examined and ruled on by a Synod in 1980. If that is too “ancient history”, it has been examined and ruled on by the CDF repeatedly since then, including by a CDF prefect that became Pope. It has been ruled on by the CDF last year, and again just a couple of weeks ago.

And again, if this all ends up being an annulment process adjustment, then I will thank God with all my heart. But as of right now, there are ideas being presented and considered that go beyond that.
Click to expand...
But we have to face facts that the times are relevant. The juridical annulment process like any judicial laws, have to take into account the culture of the times to be properly effective. In 1968 in the US 338 annulments were granted compared to 27 000 in 2006. Pope StJPII expressed strong concern about what that fact was saying about the Catholic understanding of marriage among the faithful and initiated a movement within the Church to look at the question more deeply. On the one hand you have people saying that the annulment process needs to be made easier and cheaper but that isn’t really addressing the problem of a general lack of true faith among people presenting at Church for a marriage. Pope Francis in echoing another respected theologian, speculated that probably half of all Catholic marriages are null in the current climate of deficient faith.

For those of us who like JPII worry about what the current annulment process is doing to undermine Catholic marriage in general… there is the realisation that another way of determining validity needs to be developed. A way that is not so much about assumptions and guess work based on what a person says, but something based on the evidence of spiritual fruits that bloom in someones life.

In the early Church certain gratuitous gifts of God were recognised and esteemed in Christian communal life. Things like discernment of spirits, prophecy,wisdom and mercy and these gifts complemented judicial processes in determining questions of faith and morals. Pope Francis coming from the Jesuit tradition is perfectly situated to help bring these charisms to the table in dealing with this huge problem of broken Catholic marriages.

The stance that once the law is implemented it must never be revised or reformulated in any conditions is not the way of the Church. This is why she exists, so that we get the best grasp of scripture and doctrine possible in the light of every age. If not for that, there really would be no need for a Church that is anything more than a library of unchangeable facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top