Vicar for Rome issues strict guidelines for implementing Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[pnewton]

Back in May 2016, Homiletic and Pastoral Review published an analysis of AL by Fr. Regis Scanlan, in which he said “The ambiguities and apparent contradictions in the document have raised more questions than they have answered, which is certainly an odd and puzzling result for such an eagerly awaited papal document."

–HPR May 2016

He lost me with “deceptive and immoral”, “lack of honesty”, sleight of hand", etc. No, I do not see confusion, but insult, along with disagreement. I also see an imputing of sin to the Holy Father who wrote this when he said, “The preparers want “open communion” to all, regardless of their spiritual condition.” This is just an outright assumption, looking to the worst possible motives, when it is clear throughout the document that this is not true. I have appreciate the charity with which most of the Holy Father’s dissenter’s have responded to him. Accusations of deception and evil motives are just wrong.

Even the introductory sentence makes it clear, “The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.” Open communion would be just as much of a rigid classification has zero communion. The situations give, including the one that had JPII footnote, are examples, clear to anyone who reads it, meant** not** to be exhaustive or specific.

The thing is, the document is a reflection of the work of the synod, and expression of magisterial understanding, where not all agreed on the outcome. I suggest the advice of Jesus to St. Paul, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.;” or of Gamalial, "So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes!

I have been regretfully seeing much disregard for our current Pope, doubting his authenticity and disrespecting his authority.

It is SO sad!

I agree with you. I am finding this forum, after a year of participation, to be populated by people I have less and less interest in trying to interact with.

This thread is a prime example.

The guidelines of the Diocese of Rome indeed are excellent – when they are read in their entirety by someone who knows both how they are to be read and how they are to be applied – and it is my sincere hope they will assist the bishops and priests of other dioceses, which have much less resources, to put their own guidelines in place.

But the guidelines exist for priests who have the cura animarum and who are drawing upon years of education followed by years of pastoral ministry, in the company of their presybyterate…some of whom will have done advanced studies in the different fields of theology and some of whom will have done advanced studies in canon law.

I read the various interventions, as a theologian. Various positions of various even highly placed prelates simply did not carry at the synod. One trusts they will be helped by their brother prelates to overcome their concerns.

The post-synodal apostolic exhortation was issued and our guidelines are based upon it. Period.

I have found it interesting to scan the opinions of the laity here – but that is what they are…opinions and opinions at that nformed by years of study of theology in the academy, unformed by years of study of canon law in the academy, unformed by being part of a presybyterate where one is carrying out the cura animarum shoulder to shoulder with one’s brother priests and unformed by actual engagement with the issues at depth, which is what I am doing when speaking with a theological colleague.

In other words, the opinions I read here are with no influence on me other than giving me an insight into what people on an internet forum are saying.

 

[Wesrock]

Many of us appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in all your posts, Father. Tours and that of other priests. Speaking for myself, seeing the pastoral advice provided by you has certainly helped form my thoughts and responses. I’ve been appropriately humbled just by reading posts of yours not even directed at me.

 

[Ender]

The guidelines of the Diocese of Rome indeed are excellent – when they are read in their entirety by someone who knows both how they are to be read and how they are to be applied …

As I understand it the guidelines in the past were that a person who was divorced and remarried could receive communion in only two cases: the first marriage was declared invalid by the church, or the couple lived as brother and sister. Apparently those guidelines are now changed. Can you describe a different situation under the new guidelines in which such an individual would be able to receive, and can you cite the section of the document that now permits it?

Ender

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Nice to see. Also, I admit to posting because the post total in identical topics between the Catholic Press and CWN News are now equal. It’s like a Redskins-Bengals game.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As I understand it the guidelines in the past were that a person who was divorced and remarried could receive communion in only two cases: the first marriage was declared invalid by the church, or the couple lived as brother and sister. Apparently those guidelines are now changed. Can you describe a different situation under the new guidelines in which such an individual would be able to receive, and can you cite the section of the document that now permits it?

Ender

As I have said before, I do not discuss it with those who are not theologians and not priests.

If you are not a priest – or a person in need of this pastoral accompaniment – it does not concern you. It is not something I address even with those indirectly concerned.

 

[deaconjohnO]

As I have said before, I do not discuss it with those who are not theologians and not priests.

• it does not concern you. It is not something I address even with those indirectly concerned.

Interesting. Isn’t Marriage a Public matter that even requires witnesses?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Interesting. Isn’t Marriage a Public matter that even requires witnesses?

As a deacon, you should know the circumstances in which marriage is a public matter and the requirement concerning witnesses.

As a deacon, you should also know precisely when it is handled non-publicly and when the records are sealed in the diocese’s confidential archive and not divulged.

As a deacon, you know there are matters which are handled publicly and there are matters which are handled confidentially. There are matters which are handled in an open forum and then there are matters that are held in other fora.

 

[OraLabora]

Interesting. Isn’t Marriage a Public matter that even requires witnesses?

It would seem to me that much of a discussion concerning the issue of the divorced and remarried, would at the pastoral level be taking place within the confines of the confessional. That would assuredly make it a private matter, and it would follow that any pastoral directives emanating from the confessional would remain between penitent and confessor.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It would seem to me that much of a discussion concerning the issue of the divorced and remarried, would at the pastoral level be taking place within the confines of the confessional. That would assuredly make it a private matter, and it would follow that any pastoral directives emanating from the confessional would remain between penitent and confessor.

Doesn’t have to be in the confessional only, it can also be a private meeting with the priest between the couple. It’s still confidential.

Jim

 

[OraLabora]

Doesn’t have to be in the confessional only, it can also be a private meeting with the priest between the couple. It’s still confidential.

Jim

Completely agree. At the pastoral level these discussions involve highly private and sensitive matters. While the seal of the confessional is inviolable, it is reasonable to expect that total confidentiality would prevail in a parish office as well. After all we expect the same from our lawyers and physicians when dealing with sensitive personal matters.

 

[JimG]

A recent comment from canonist Dr. Edward Peters:

“In a way, though, this presenting of the “internal forum” as if it could be, even sometimes, the ultimate dispositive factor in whether holy Communion should be given to an individual is actually worse than what the proportionalists do above, because, while ‘proportionality’ is almost always a factor to be considered in making moral choices, the “internal forum” is almost never a factor to be considered in making Communion-distribution decisions!”

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/taking-a-page-from-the-proportionalist-playbook/

 

[irenaeus1]

I agree with you. I am finding this forum, after a year of participation, to be populated by people I have less and less interest in trying to interact with.

This thread is a prime example.

The guidelines of the Diocese of Rome indeed are excellent – when they are read in their entirety by someone who knows both how they are to be read and how they are to be applied – and it is my sincere hope they will assist the bishops and priests of other dioceses, which have much less resources, to put their own guidelines in place.

But the guidelines exist for priests who have the cura animarum and who are drawing upon years of education followed by years of pastoral ministry, in the company of their presybyterate…some of whom will have done advanced studies in the different fields of theology and some of whom will have done advanced studies in canon law.

I read the various interventions, as a theologian. Various positions of various even highly placed prelates simply did not carry at the synod. One trusts they will be helped by their brother prelates to overcome their concerns.

The post-synodal apostolic exhortation was issued and our guidelines are based upon it. Period.

AL, upon which the guidelines are based, was not only issued to priests, but to the laity as well

I have found it interesting to scan the opinions of the laity here – but that is what they are…opinions and opinions at that nformed by years of study of theology in the academy, unformed by years of study of canon law in the academy, unformed by being part of a presybyterate where one is carrying out the cura animarum shoulder to shoulder with one’s brother priests and unformed by actual engagement with the issues at depth, which is what I am doing when speaking with a theological colleague.

In other words, the opinions I read here are with no influence on me other than giving me an insight into what people on an internet forum are saying.

I’m not sure what else you expected when hanging out on a lay Catholic forum.

 

[irenaeus1]

As I have said before, I do not discuss it with those who are not theologians and not priests.

If you are not a priest – or a person in need of this pastoral accompaniment – it does not concern you. It is not something I address even with those indirectly concerned.

You are, after all, on a lay Catholic forum. There is no good reason why you could not provide an hypothetical example of a situation that now allows for the reception of Holy Communion by the D&R that was apparently not available prior to May of this year. There is no reason to decline to answer simply because the person asking is not a priest or a theologian.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are, after all, on a lay Catholic forum. There is no good reason why you could not provide an hypothetical example of a situation that now allows for the reception of Holy Communion by the D&R that was apparently not available prior to May of this year. There is no reason to decline to answer simply because the person asking is not a priest or a theologian.

Its a “free world” here so long as contributors are charitable surely.

Laity here are free to discuss matters even whn they may unfortunately be punching well above their weight. Don Ruggero is also free to respectfully observe when such is happening and decline to elaborate further if he so chooses.

What makes me cringe the most is when lay contributors, uneducated and unformed in all the ways Don Ruggero observes, pontificate more dogmatically on complex issues than even the Pontiff himself would do and so go where even angels would fear to tread.

So I also am not sure what else you expected when hanging out on a lay Catholic forum.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You are, after all, on a lay Catholic forum. There is no good reason why you could not provide an hypothetical example of a situation that now allows for the reception of Holy Communion by the D&R that was apparently not available prior to May of this year. There is no reason to decline to answer simply because the person asking is not a priest or a theologian.

Let us be quite clear:

I answer those questions on this forum which I choose to answer.

I am under no obligation to answer any question here at all. I respond here out of my own generosity.

Laity, such as yourself, have absolutely no prerogative to demand any response from me whatsoever.

I decline to answer any and every question that I choose to decline or not respond to…above all when I determine, according to my judgment, that it is simply not appropriate to respond – or to divulge what is, in fact, confidential.

This is a matter I do not even address in my diocese with those who are ordained to the diaconate since the counsel to them is very simple: if they are aware of someone needing this pastoral assistance, they are to refer them to a priest. Full stop. End of discussion. Nothing more to say.

 

[irenaeus1]

As I have said before, I do not discuss it with those who are not theologians and not priests.

If you are not a priest – or a person in need of this pastoral accompaniment – it does not concern you. It is not something I address even with those indirectly concerned.

That is incorrect. I do not have to be a priest (or a theologian) – or person needing pastoral accompaniment – for this to be any of my concern. AL was addressed to the laity as well.

 

[irenaeus1]

Let us be quite clear:

I answer those questions on this forum which I choose to answer.

I am under no obligation to answer any question here at all. I respond here out of my own generosity.

Laity, such as yourself, have absolutely no prerogative to demand any response from me whatsoever.

I decline to answer any and every question that I choose to decline or not respond to…above all when I determine, according to my judgment, that it is simply not appropriate to respond – or to divulge what is, in fact, confidential.

This is a matter I do not even address in my diocese with those who are ordained to the diaconate since the counsel to them is very simple: if they are aware of someone needing this pastoral assistance, they are to refer them to a priest. Full stop. End of discussion. Nothing more to say.

I didn’t say that you didn’t have a choice whether or not to answer; it’s just the reason for your declining to answer that is interesting. Just not sure why the aversion for someone as informed, formed and educated as yourself would not help those who are uneducated or uninformed or unformed. That’s all.

 

[pnewton]

If you are not a priest – or a person in need of this pastoral accompaniment – it does not concern you.

I think this issue underlies most of the criticism the Holy Father has endured on this topic. We always need to remember the word of Jesus to Peter (John 21), “What is it to you,” when we look at that which does not concern us. What is our motive? Are we forming our consciences to a future priestly ministry? Are we jealous because, like the older brother, we have done what is right an resent mercy being shown to one who has not?

I have not issue point out scenarios that shed light on the subject, as a layperson to other lay people. I will accept that scandal can be an issue. I do not accept it is very often the case. It is clear that such an issue is to be determined by the local priest, not us.

Consider this. When at Mass, is there any way to know, even if you know someone is in a second marriage, who has an annulment and who hasn’t? Of course not. Yet the Church has long allowed many to receive communion in the second civil marriage.

So, worst case, some person approaches you about this “scandal”. How can you respond? I think the answer is found in the very document that so few are reading (except section 8). Explain the Church’s teachings. That is the foundation to everything. If the Church did not teach the permanence of marriage, none of this would be an issue. When asked about a specific that seems odd, that is the time to say that there may be more than the rest of us know and the priest, who has been trained in this, has to engage in careful pastoral discernment.

If one thinks this sort of decision making is his business, then thanks be to God! The priesthood is for him!

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other.