The Pope on Remarried Catholics Receiving Communion

[Open Heart]

September 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation.

The Spanish original of the letter from the Pope is here

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...f-amoris-laetitia-than-allowing-communion-for

 

[mea kulpa]

Unfortunatly its the inevitable and totally expected result of A.L. i am completely unsuprised.

 

[Davidnic]

If the letter is even real all it does is provide an automatic annulment in the case of diminished culpability. The same way there are automatic excommunications for cases of culpability.

It doesn't change that an annulment would be required. It changes how an annulment can be applied. In other words it allows for a priest under a narrow set of circumstances to apply an annulment outside the normative process.

So even if the document is real. Life site news is being extremely misleading in how they're reporting it

 

[Open Heart]

If the letter is even real all it does is provide an automatic annulment in the case of diminished culpability. The same way there are automatic excommunications for cases of culpability.

It doesn't change that an annulment would be required. It changes how an annulment can be applied. In other words it allows for a priest under a narrow set of circumstances to apply an annulment outside the normative process.

So even if the document is real. Life site news is being extremely misleading in how they're reporting it

I understand what you're saying.

Life site news is a Catholic source.

 

[MikeK]

[QUOTE="Open Heart, post: 70137944, member: 356742]
Life site news is a Catholic source.[/QUOTE]

No, it most certainly is not. Catholic sources are those operated by the Vatican and the USCCB. A PAC that happens to have a few Priests associated with it is not a Catholic source. No reputable source would make public such "leaked" documents.

 

[Davidnic]

I understand what you're saying.

Life site news is a Catholic source.

Lifesite is becoming increasingly inaccurate and agenda driven against the Pope. Even when something is true it is worded in a deceptive way. It is sad because if does publish relevant information for Pro-life causes that is important. But anymore you have to sift through lots of spin to get to the facts of an article.

 

[Open Heart]

Lifesite is becoming increasingly inaccurate and agenda driven against the Pope. Even when something is true it is worded in a deceptive way. It is sad because if does publish relevant information for Pro-life causes that is important. But anymore you have to sift through lots of spin to get to the facts of an article.

Huh. I hadn't heard that. I'll keep my eyes open.

 

[Davidnic]

I'm sure some would disagree. But they have taken a more Catholic than the Pope attitude at life site for a bit now.

 

[Open Heart]

I'm sure some would disagree. But they have taken a more Catholic than the Pope attitude at life site for a bit now.

I just know I enjoy reading the Catholics for Israel newsletter (a Hebrew Catholic publication) and it was linking to Life Site for one of its headlines.

 

[mea kulpa]

I understand what you're saying.

Life site news is a Catholic source.

There are catholics involved in lifesitenews but i dont think its entirely run by catholics. It is a very good source and i have been a reader for many years.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Nothing has changed to the doctrine of marriage. All this has been the opinion and reflections of the Pope. Nothing has changed. It is unfortunate that the Pope has made such reflections and opinions as it has caused confusion and perhaps even scandal, but mere opinions are not legislative. Nothing has changed.

 

[mea kulpa]

Nothing has changed to the doctrine of marriage. All this has been the opinion and reflections of the Pope. Nothing has changed. It is unfortunate that the Pope has made such reflections and opinions as it has caused confusion and perhaps even scandal, but mere opinions are not legislative. Nothing has changed.

I think you miss the point. Even if nothing has changed and your perfectly correct nothing has changed but if these reflections and opinions are widely accepted and put into practice then its going to lead the faithful into believing it has changed and that is detremental to the souls of the faithfull. I surely need not remind you of the warnings of our lady of fatima or the multitude of visitations of our lady or our lords words "do you think i shall find faith"

 

[BroIgnatius]

I think you miss the point. Even if nothing has changed and your perfectly correct nothing has changed but if these reflections and opinions are widely accepted and put into practice then its going to lead the faithful into believing it has changed and that is detremental to the souls of the faithfull. I surely need not remind you of the warnings of our lady of fatima or the multitude of visitations of our lady or our lords words "do you think i shall find faith"

I did not miss this point, I merely abbreviated it with the phrase "It is unfortunate that the Pope has made such reflections and opinions as it has caused confusion and perhaps even scandal". Thanks for expanding my point into more detail.

There are some nuanced considerations in this debate concerning the "diminish culpability" of the couple. I would say that even if diminished culpability, which is a condition the Church teaches about the qualifications for mortal sin, applies to the couple, it only refers to the sin, not the ontological fact that they are living in sin if they continue to have sex without first receiving a Decree of Nullity. And, if diminished culpability does exist, that should be removed by education and counseling allowing the couple to have full and unimpaired knowledge of the teachings on marriage.

None of this, however, speaks to the ontological fact that such a couple is in an adulterous relationship if they continued to have sex, and thus cannot receive communion.

I think you are right that these reflections will likely lead to bishops and priests to practice what has not actually be legislated leading to more scandal, as well as spiritual harm to the couples.

We must pray that these issues get clarified. We must resist the idea of a so-called change in the doctrine of marriage (which, by the way, is a infallible teaching, Level 2 teaching, I believe).

We must approach the Pope's Exhortation (which is not a magisterial document) with critical analysis as mentions by Cardinal Burke: Cardinal Burke says Pope’s exhortation must be read ‘critically’

And if there is an actual attempt to change doctrine, that must be resisted respectfully:
Cardinal Burke: ‘I will resist’ the Pope should he contravene doctrine

 

[mea kulpa]

I would go even further. The error and false teaching if widely accepted will not just put remarried couples at risk but also perhaps even more so ordinary layity who blindly follow their priests.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Agreed

 

[MikeK]

I'm surprised the Pope doesn't tap into the vast wisdom of OBOB before he makes statements. I mean, yeah, his credentials are impressive and sure, he surrounds himself with great theologians and even the Pope Emeritus, but he should really check in here first.

 

[mea kulpa]

I'm surprised the Pope doesn't tap into the vast wisdom of OBOB before he makes statements. I mean, yeah, his credentials are impressive and sure, he surrounds himself with great theologians and even the Pope Emeritus, but he should really check in here first.

Yeah i have seen some of the papal advisors... great theologians like that Hans Schellnhuber and walter kasper... hardly fill me with confidence in regards to who has the papal ear.

 

[Davidnic]

The thing is some of this is a canonical matter in how nullity is recognized, not doctrinal. If a marriage does not exist...it does not exist. What the Pope is doing is giving pastors, under a set of conditions, authority to assess that. And, if they work with what he has already done in making annulment accessible, they then normalize the issue. But the decree of nullity does not create the situation it confirms it. So there are people who exist in a state of annulment but do not know it and restrict themselves from the Eucharist. This helps get them to the Eucharist.

Now, yes, some pastors will abuse it. God's mercy be upon them. Because that is not a thing to lightly do.

But no doctrine is changed. The double edged sword is more people can be brought to a normative state that they may already exist in. And be restored to full participation. The other edge is some pastors will abuse it and, in doing that...commit a grave sin. But the weakness of some is a different issue. I understand the worry that even if the Pope has one form of implementation in mind...that others will run wild with it.

The problem here is also the spin and the dishonest presentation some outlets have done.

 

[Open Heart]

Here is some clarification of the Pope's position:

"This dance has effectively left Catholicism with two teachings on marriage and the sacraments. The traditional rule is inscribed in the church’s magisterium, and no mere papal note can abrogate it.

But to the typical observer, it’s the Francis position that looks more like the church’s real teaching (he is the pope, after all), even if it’s delivered off the cuff or in footnotes or through surrogates.

That position, more or less, seems to be that second marriages may be technically adulterous, but it’s unreasonable to expect modern people to realize that, and even more unreasonable to expect them to leave those marriages or practice celibacy within them. So the sin involved in a second marriage is often venial, not mortal, and not serious enough to justify excluding people of good intentions from the sacraments.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/...s-and-divorce/

 

[Fantine]

If priests are told to use their judgment--not only about divorced and remarried couples, but in many other areas--don't you think that it just as possible, perhaps even more so, for priests to commit grave sin by being too inflexible, too judgmental. too punitive?

Is it really necessary to preemptively second-guess their judgment by talking about the grave sins they will commit if they are too lenient? That, of course, is trying to manipulate the priest's judgment--which has been given to him and him alone--by threats and bullying. Surely that's not what God wants--preemptive manipulation by congregational conservatives to prevent the priest from using his best judgment!

I think that if we look back in history we will find many cases of priests who committed grave sins by being too inflexible and punitive. I'll start. My husband's stepfather (divorced and remarried outside the Church) died in a sudden accident when he was 40. The pastor refused to bury him in the Church until a group of my mother-in-law's neighbors, horrified at the grave scandal he was giving by his harshness to a grieving widow and her children (the youngest was only 6 years old), begged him to reconsider. This humiliated and embarrassed my mother-in-law--who never went back to Church until she was practically on her deathbed.

Some of you may approve of the pastor's decision, but if you had seen the result on the grieving family--lasting for years, you would realize what a grave sin it might have been.