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

[Ender]

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

Ah, so your position is that while “The guidelines of the Diocese of Rome indeed are excellent” no one who isn’t a theologian or a priest needs to know what they are? I would have thought that whatever the church teaches would be beneficial for people to know. I guess we’ll have just have to form our own opinions on the matter. So here’s mine: the doctrines have not changed, but the proper application of those doctrines has now been so thoroughly muddied that the same action approved in one diocese will be rejected in another. The application will differ greatly between countries, and between bishops. It will look like one more personal choice option rather than an eternal teaching.
Ender

 

[Convert_in_99]

Wow! Really people? Such disrespect to our dear clergy. Sorry Father Ruggero!

Father Ruggero is correct we don’t need to apply this information as laity. Even if we be in a divorce/remarriage situation, it is the clergy who determine whether we are to receive this special exemption or not. It’s fine if the laity wish to read about it, but it’s application is strictly reserved for the clergy.

 

[Convert_in_99]

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!

Exactly! It really isn’t our concern.

I like your last sentence btw. I don’t envy our clergy in these difficult times. :nope: They need our prayers and support, not our criticism.

 

[twf]

Ah, so your position is that while “The guidelines of the Diocese of Rome indeed are excellent” no one who isn’t a theologian or a priest needs to know what they are? I would have thought that whatever the church teaches would be beneficial for people to know. I guess we’ll have just have to form our own opinions on the matter. So here’s mine: the doctrines have not changed, but the proper application of those doctrines has now been so thoroughly muddied that the same action approved in one diocese will be rejected in another. The application will differ greatly between countries, and between bishops. It will look like one more personal choice option rather than an eternal teaching.
Ender

Father is saying that only one formed in theology and with pastoral experience is competent to implement these guidelines in the unique, individual situations people find themselves in. Furthermore, only these individual’s pastors have the authority to judge these unique situations. There is no blanket rule here nor a comprehensive list of potential scenarios. The judgment of the competent cleric is paramount.

 

[JimG]

From Robert Royal’s commentary:

“Here’s where a William Jamesian/American pragmatist approach helps. Part of the meaning of this text emerges from what it does. Some of us predicted after the Synod that we could soon have a Catholic Church that was not universal. --That what was a sacrilege in Poland – taking Communion while divorced and remarried – would, if you drove to Germany, become regarded as a new outpouring of mercy.
No one predicted conflicts within countries, which we now have – Rome permitting, Florence not permitting communion. Or between different parishes. And we’re also hearing that individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter. In Washington, we note that when a politician wrestles with his conscience, it’s remarkable how often he wins.”

–Source

 

[Don_Ruggero]

From Robert Royal’s commentary:

“Here’s where a William Jamesian/American pragmatist approach helps. Part of the meaning of this text emerges from what it does. Some of us predicted after the Synod that we could soon have a Catholic Church that was not universal. --That what was a sacrilege in Poland – taking Communion while divorced and remarried – would, if you drove to Germany, become regarded as a new outpouring of mercy.
No one predicted conflicts within countries, which we now have – Rome permitting, Florence not permitting communion. Or between different parishes. And we’re also hearing that individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter. In Washington, we note that when a politician wrestles with his conscience, it’s remarkable how often he wins.”

–Source

Actually, I find the text of the author bizarre.

“No one predicted”…this commentator seems then to either not have asked the right person or else not asked the right question…or, perhaps better said, he is trying to comment on something he is not able to offer meaningful commentary about.

There is, and always has been, a remarkable difference between what was possible or feasible in one place and what was possible or feasible in another place…that is hardly a new phenomenon. Whether one is speaking internationally, within a given country, or within a given diocese. It could be for disparity of resources or available expertise or even just who it was with whom you happened to be talking.

It reminds me of someone coming up to me years ago, after Mass, wanting to talk through a problem and get “a second opinion.” The situation explained, I said how we could proceed very straight-forwardly and matter-of-factly.

The person was astonished saying his own pastor had said it would be necessary to explain this matter to a person at the chancery, as it required a special handling – “and here you are telling me it can be resolved without you going to anyone else and you are willing to just do it straight away and take it on yourself.”

I answered, “Your pastor was right in what he told you – as it is, I am that person that he was going to have to present your case to. Now he doesn’t have to…you just did it yourself.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father is saying that only one formed in theology and with pastoral experience is competent to implement these guidelines in the unique, individual situations people find themselves in. Furthermore, only these individual’s pastors have the authority to judge these unique situations. There is no blanket rule here nor a comprehensive list of potential scenarios. The judgment of the competent cleric is paramount.

You have said it quite well. I would merely add that the priest is making the application in a concrete circumstance according to the guidelines that, very possibly, he actually helped create with the bishop.

Which brings me back to what you are commenting upon regarding the individual’s pastor, his responsibility and his competence in every sense of that word: the opinion of someone who is not a theologian, not a canonist, does not have cura animarum and, leaving all that aside, has not even one day of pastoral experience as a priest really has no insight to contribute by some opinion that should be, in any remote way, thought to be meaningful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wow! Really people? Such disrespect to our dear clergy. Sorry Father Ruggero!

Father Ruggero is correct we don’t need to apply this information as laity. Even if we be in a divorce/remarriage situation, it is the clergy who determine whether we are to receive this special exemption or not. It’s fine if the laity wish to read about it, but it’s application is strictly reserved for the clergy.

Thank you.

I very much appreciate the sentiment you have expressed.

Frankly, I have been repeatedly astonished by the utter disrespect, not only to deacons and priests, but above all to those who are the successors of the apostles and which I have repeatedly witnessed on The Catholic Answers Forum. Such attitudes are deplorable. I think it is very very sad, actually.

The behaviour does inspire me to pray for the bishops and priests of the United States, who evidently face such an utter lack of deference and respect from members of the lay faithful – laity who are to live their Catholic lives under the governance and jurisdiction of their shepherds…their respective bishop and their parish priest.

 

[pnewton]

From Robert Royal’s commentary:

"Here’s where a William Jamesian/American pragmatist approach helps. Part of the meaning of this text emerges from what it does. Some of us predicted after the Synod that we could soon have a Catholic Church that was not universal.

I always find this sort of posting difficult. When we get the opinion of someone else, posted by a third party, there is no dialogue with the author that can clarify. I can only read what is on the surface. In this case, what is on the surface show a profound misunderstanding of what makes the Catholic Church universal. It never is, and never was, uniformity of practice.

 

[dans0622]

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/

I find the document’s mention of the “internal forum” to be disturbing. There might be one situation in a million where it could make sense and be legitimate but…

Dan

 

[irenaeus1]

Frankly, I have been repeatedly astonished by the utter disrespect, not only to deacons and priests, but above all to those who are the successors of the apostles and which I have repeatedly witnessed on The Catholic Answers Forum. Such attitudes are deplorable. I think it is very very sad, actually.

The behaviour does inspire me to pray for the bishops and priests of the United States, who evidently face such an utter lack of deference and respect from members of the lay faithful – laity who are to live their Catholic lives under the governance and jurisdiction of their shepherds…their respective bishop and their parish priest.

I know. I, too, am repeatedly astonished at the disrespect shown to priests, canon lawyers, theologians, and even successors of the apostles who hold to the practice that was in place prior to May 16 - even when they were advocating their position prior to May 2016. Simply astonishing.

 

[dans0622]

I find the document’s mention of the “internal forum” to be disturbing. There might be one situation in a million where it could make sense and be legitimate but…

Dan

Clarifying my own remark…the document says: “This means a certain openness, as in the case in which there is the moral certainty that the first marriage was null but there are not the proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting…” It is this kind of use of the “internal forum” that I am talking about.

 

[pnewton]

I know. I, too, am repeatedly astonished at the disrespect shown to priests, canon lawyers, theologians, and even successors of the apostles who hold to the practice that was in place prior to May 16 - even when they were advocating their position prior to May 2016. Simply astonishing.

I have not seen that. If I had, I would have been happy to report disrespect here. Now I know that the opinions of some that you speak of did not carry the synod, but that is the way synods operate. I would not say they are wrong, but a minority opinion might be a mistaken. That is the nature of humanity, not disprespect.

 

[pnewton]

Clarifying my own remark…the document says: “This means a certain openness, as in the case in which there is the moral certainty that the first marriage was null but there are not the proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting…” It is this kind of use of the “internal forum” that I am talking about.

Just to be clear, if the first marriage was null, then it is not permanent and the second marriage is the first.

 

[irenaeus1]

I have not seen that. If I had, I would have been happy to report disrespect here. Now I know that the opinions of some that you speak of did not carry the synod, but that is the way synods operate. I would not say they are wrong, but a minority opinion might be a mistaken. That is the nature of humanity, not disprespect.

I’ve seen it, and I reported one of them weeks later at which point it was ultimately removed. First time that I ever reported a post in my 12+ years here.

And you keep saying ‘minority’… but by all indications, it was the majority of bishops who wanted to maintain the current practice.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve seen it, and I reported one of them weeks later at which point it was ultimately removed. First time that I ever reported a post in my 12+ years here.

And you keep saying ‘minority’… but by all indications, it was the majority of bishops who wanted to maintain the current practice.

I don’t know. I guess all we really know is that what the majority of those* at the synod* decided. I sure do not want to weight those who were most vocal unnecessarily.

 

[irenaeus1]

I don’t know. I guess all we really know is that what the majority of those* at the synod* decided.

Do we? It is not apparent from the Relatio Synodi of the Ordinary Synod on the Family in 2015, which is the final report of those* at the synod*, that the majority wanted to change the practice of the Church regarding Holy Communion for the D&R.

 

[pnewton]

Do we? It is not apparent from the Relatio Synodi of the Ordinary Synod on the Family in 2015, which is the final report of those* at the synod*, that the majority wanted to change the practice of the Church regarding Holy Communion for the D&R.

Well, I thought it apparent. Let me say that I was not surprised by the Pope’s exhortation. Chapter 84 refers to more integration, and 86 surely sounds similar to what the Pope is wanting.

 

[irenaeus1]

I’ve seen it, and I reported one of them weeks later at which point it was ultimately removed. First time that I ever reported a post in my 12+ years here.

As a follow-up by the way, the only reason I reported the infraction on the above-mentioned post was because I myself was cited for an infraction against that very post because someone had said that certain cardinals, because of their advocacy of maintaining the traditional practice of the Church, would be quietly demoted by the pope… To which I responded that I hoped not because that would be a petty thing for the pope to do in retaliation. I was thinking… why am I being cited as being disrespectful to Pope Francis? I had not called the Holy Father petty, but merely saying that if he responded in such a manner as proposed by the poster, it would seem petty. Upon closer look and wondering why I could possibly be cited as being disrespectful for a comment that seemed rather innocuous, I noted that the post to which I was responding had accused these cardinals of acting badly and was promoting a non-dialoguing spirit. Why would that not be flagged? So my point in saying all this is that it appears that the disrespect for priests, bishops, canon lawyers, etc. seems to go both ways, but certain individuals on this forum only seem to acknowledge it as occurring in only one direction.

 

[irenaeus1]

Well, I thought it apparent. Let me say that I was not surprised by the Pope’s exhortation. Chapter 84 refers to more integration, and 86 surely sounds similar to what the Pope is wanting.

Better integration and accompaniment is one thing, but neither of those sections mention possible access to the sacraments, especially while remaining in an irregular union.