Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Nihil Obstat]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well most of us live in a state that is objectively contradictory to the moral law. You don't? 

No, certainly not. Not in the way that we are speaking about with regards to Canon 915. The canon envisions situations including, for instance, Catholics who are civilly divorced and remarried, Catholics who are in 'married' homosexual relationships, politicians who vote against Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion. I would think that notorious heretics would be included, a woman who attempted to be ordained, etc. We are talking about public sins. So no, I can confidently say that I am not in a situation covered by Canon 915, nor have I ever been.

22 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Thanks Nihil -

Nihil, is Pope Francis in AL confirming the majority conclusions of the Synod?  Or is his [Pope Francis] challenge to 915 coming right out the blue and not connected to formal discussions and conclusions in the Synod?

 

I could not hope to comment on this. Calling it a challenge to canon 915 is an interesting way to put it.

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No, certainly not. Not in the way that we are speaking about with regards to Canon 915. The canon envisions situations including, for instance, Catholics who are civilly divorced and remarried, Catholics who are in 'married' homosexual relationships, politicians who vote against Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion. I would think that notorious heretics would be included, a woman who attempted to be ordained, etc. We are talking about public sins. So no, I can confidently say that I am not in a situation covered by Canon 915, nor have I ever been.

I could not hope to comment on this. Calling it a challenge to canon 915 is an interesting way to put it.

Oh. I thought we were discussing the extent to which the canons can be altered while remaining within the confines of the moral law.

I wouldn't have thought that I fall under the Canons either.

[Nihil Obstat]

If an exception to Canon 915 is made for divorced/remarried Catholics, then the entire law might as well be scrapped, because it would no longer have any consistency. And this was brought up in the dubia, in some of the supporting text. Either we are asserting that the adulterous second marriage is not sinful, or we are saying that such a person should go ahead and receive anyway, despite the objective contradiction to the moral law. Or that we are simply accepting civil divorce as being morally relevant to the valid marriages of Catholics, which is even sillier.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If an exception to Canon 915 is made for divorced/remarried Catholics, then the entire law might as well be scrapped, because it would no longer have any consistency. And this was brought up in the dubia, in some of the supporting text. Either we are asserting that the adulterous second marriage is not sinful, or we are saying that such a person should go ahead and receive anyway, despite the objective contradiction to the moral law. Or that we are simply accepting civil divorce as being morally relevant to the valid marriages of Catholics, which is even sillier.

Or is it the potential of "manifest grave sin" being taken out of Canon 915 and mortal sin alone stated as reason to be denied Holy Communion.  This would not condone any issue of grave matter and the seriousness of "manifest grave matter" - and it just might result in Catholics not accusing those in "manifest grave sin" of mortal sin with the implication that full knowledge and full consent was present - and that the person(s) is on the road to Hell and damnation.  "Manifest grave sin" and mortal sin are completely different subjects.

[Nihil Obstat]

Canon 915 specifically and intentionally is not concerned with internal/external forum issues.

[Guest]

______________

Now I am starting to understand re Canon 915 as it now is:

 EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm

Quote

"First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.

Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Canon 915 seems to be more about the public image of The Church and not at all about interior and actual disposition of the person?

[Guest]

Think I am understanding even more very thankfully - Canon 915 and 916 are primarily for priests.

It is important to be able to understand, not only for oneself as a layperson down the back in the pews somewhere but because of all the attention it's getting, it is often a discussion after Mass with others of the same genre - or in the car going home after Mass or a meeting of some kind.  It could even involve a question being asked by a neighbour: Catholic and not practising or non-Catholic.  Anyone at all, anywhere or any time.  It is an issue now of secular current affairs as well.

We cannot evangelise without the necessary understanding of Catholicism.

Deo Gratius.

___

Seems to me that once the celebrant of Mass is aware that a person(s) is in "manifest grave sin" of any kind, he must warn the person that they cannot receive Holy Communion at Mass before actually refusing Holy Communion during Mass.

[Nihil Obstat]

Theoretically it also binds extraordinary ministers, but we all know how that works in practice.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

but we all know how that works in practice.

Could you elaborate please, because I genuinely have no idea how it "works in practice".  It seems to me to beg the question of how to define "manifest".  If an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, for example, knows that a person is living in an irregular situation, but it happens to not be quite common knowledge, must the Extraordinary Minister still refuse Holy Communion and make it therefore quite public that something is amiss with the person?  The same would apply it seems to me with a priest.  If something is not common knowledge, he is making something quite public in potential which is not public knowledge?

Would both need to warn the person prior to refusal - or ?

The moment something unusual is noticed in the parish including during Mass, it can go right around the parish and with conclusions rightly or wrongly - correct or incorrect.

Edited December 1, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Nihil Obstat]

I am just grousing about EMHCs.  

[Guest]

Thank you for the "canon law made easy.com" website, Nihil.  I did read about EMHC's (the site sort of set me straight) and have questions.  But (unusually) do not want to risk taking this thread off topic about which I still have confusions. The website re canon law made easy will certainly be a big help at times.

Re the site, the summary: "Canon law made easy for normal people", gave me a .

[Jack4]

4 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I did read about EMHC's (the site sort of set me straight) and have questions.  But (unusually) do not want to risk taking this thread off topic about which I still have confusions.

You can simply start a new thread asking your questions.Some scholar will help you.

[Nihil Obstat]

Eminently relevant, and perhaps not as much in the forefront of this discussion as it deserves to be:

Familiaris Consortio, #84: (emphasis mine)

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

[Peace]

57 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Eminently relevant, and perhaps not as much in the forefront of this discussion as it deserves to be:

Familiaris Consortio, #84: (emphasis mine)

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

Sure. But what if the current or a subsequent pope disagrees? For the sake of argument lets say that Amoris and Familiaris disagree with each other.

Is it then up for you to follow the current pope, or follow the old pope because your conclusion is that the old pope is correct? 

I dunno. It seems like a tough question. If you feel like the current pope is wrong then I suppose you have a duty to follow your conscience and object. On the other hand, if you choose not to follow the current pope it seems that you run the risk of becoming your own pope - you are basically just deciding for yourself who you think is correct instead of submitting to the living authority. 

At least from my perspective, I feel like it is just better to follow the current pope and have faith that the Holy Spirit will eventually guide him and the other bishops into the truth.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Sure. But what if the current or a subsequent pope disagrees? For the sake of argument lets say that Amoris and Familiaris disagree with each other.

Is it then up for you to follow the current pope, or follow the old pope because your conclusion is that the old pope is correct? 

I dunno. It seems like a tough question. If you feel like the current pope is wrong then I suppose you have a duty to follow your conscience and object. On the other hand, if you choose not to follow the current pope it seems that you run the risk of becoming your own pope - you are basically just deciding for yourself who you think is correct instead of submitting to the living authority. 

At least from my perspective, I feel like it is just better to follow the current pope and have faith that the Holy Spirit will eventually guide him and the other bishops into the truth.

The broader question to ask is whether or not Familiaris is something that can be contradicted. Because obviously the teachings in F.C. are not new ones. If indeed a novelty does exist - not saying it does or does not - it is in Amoris, not Familiaris. How do we treat novel doctrines? I believe the line of reasoning framed in that way is more fruitful.