Mercy, Amoris: Another Perspective

[McM RSCJ]

Pope Francis preached today at the close of the Year of Mercy that ‘the true door of mercy, which is the heart of Christ, always remains open for us.”

On Friday, Pope Francis Pope Francis told bishops that while they must never lose sight of the truth in handling annulment cases, they must also do everything in their power to help people whose marriages have broken down to feel part of the Church, including helping them obtain an annulment quickly when possible.

The Church, “who is embodied in the sad stories and sufferings of the people,” bends down to the poor “and to those who are far away from the ecclesial community or consider themselves outside of it due to their marital failure.”  For the Church has always had the attitude of a mother “who welcomes and loves, following the example of Jesus the Good Samaritan.” Because of this, it is the responsibility of bishops never to “consider [those whose marriages fail] strangers to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”

In an interview with the Italian Newspaper Avvenire, Pope Francis said: “The church exists only as an instrument for communicating God’s merciful plan to the people.”  In a passage commentators think may refer to the four Cardinals who sent the Dubia, he notes some reactions to his apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, continue to reflect a lack of understanding about how the Holy Spirit has been working in the church since the Second Vatican Council. With Lumen Gentium, its dogmatic constitution on the church, the church “returned to the source of her nature -- the Gospel. This shifted the axis of Christian understanding from a kind of legalism, which can be ideological, to the person of God, who became mercy in the incarnation of the son.”

“Think about certain reactions to Amoris Laetitia -- some continue to not understand, (seeing) either white or black, even if it is in the flow of life that one must discern.”

Yet some posters on this website insist there can be no ambiguity about Church regulations on marriage and only yes or no, black or white. 

But there has always been a distinction in the Church between Her preaching and Her pastoring.  This is not new.

The four cardinals who submitted the Dubia have been called on this website “holy and honorable men.”  I am very glad, though I wonder how anyone knows that without knowing them well.  On the other hand, if any Cardinal is holy and honorable, let’s remember there are many Cardinals.  Bergoglio was a Cardinal, and now he is our Pope. 

Are we listening to his teaching and his deep deep conviction about the mercy of God?  Mercy has been his orientation since his election.    

Is Cardinal Farrell right in suggesting Holy Spirit is speaking through Amoris?

And why does it seem to be only criticism of Amoris that gets posted on this Catholic website?

 

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

14 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

 

And why does it seem to be only criticism of Amoris that gets posted on this Catholic website?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Only' criticism? Not sure what alternate universe you live in, but I would love to trade places.

Anyway, criticism is necessary at this point. This is the salvation of souls we are talking about, not the colour of his shoes. 

[Maggyie]

48 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

Pope Francis preached today at the close of the Year of Mercy that ‘the true door of mercy, which is the heart of Christ, always remains open for us.”

 

On Friday, Pope Francis Pope Francis told bishops that while they must never lose sight of the truth in handling annulment cases, they must also do everything in their power to help people whose marriages have broken down to feel part of the Church, including helping them obtain an annulment quickly when possible.

 

The Church, “who is embodied in the sad stories and sufferings of the people,” bends down to the poor “and to those who are far away from the ecclesial community or consider themselves outside of it due to their marital failure.”  For the Church has always had the attitude of a mother “who welcomes and loves, following the example of Jesus the Good Samaritan.” Because of this, it is the responsibility of bishops never to “consider [those whose marriages fail] strangers to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”

 

In an interview with the Italian Newspaper Avvenire, Pope Francis said: “The church exists only as an instrument for communicating God’s merciful plan to the people.”  In a passage commentators think may refer to the four Cardinals who sent the Dubia, he notes some reactions to his apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, continue to reflect a lack of understanding about how the Holy Spirit has been working in the church since the Second Vatican Council. With Lumen Gentium, its dogmatic constitution on the church, the church “returned to the source of her nature -- the Gospel. This shifted the axis of Christian understanding from a kind of legalism, which can be ideological, to the person of God, who became mercy in the incarnation of the son.”

 

“Think about certain reactions to Amoris Laetitia -- some continue to not understand, (seeing) either white or black, even if it is in the flow of life that one must discern.”

 

Yet some posters on this website insist there can be no ambiguity about Church regulations on marriage and only yes or no, black or white. 

 

But there has always been a distinction in the Church between Her preaching and Her pastoring.  This is not new.

 

The four cardinals who submitted the Dubia have been called on this website “holy and honorable men.”  I am very glad, though I wonder how anyone knows that without knowing them well.  On the other hand, if any Cardinal is holy and honorable, let’s remember there are many Cardinals.  Bergoglio was a Cardinal, and now he is our Pope. 

 

Are we listening to his teaching and his deep deep conviction about the mercy of God?  Mercy has been his orientation since his election.    

 

Is Cardinal Farrell right in suggesting Holy Spirit is speaking through Amoris?

 

And why does it seem to be only criticism of Amoris that gets posted on this Catholic website?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be honest, in the gospel there is not a lot of ambiguity on it. Jesus was black and white: divorce and remarriage is adultery.   When his disciples questioned this, he reiterated his teaching and agreed with them that the best thing would be to avoid marriage altogether. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

This is the salvation of souls we are talking about

General comments, not addressed to anyone in particular: I sometimes wonder if it is about the salvation of the souls of others, or about the salvation of one's own soul and mandatorily having to get it right oneself and with fear and trembling, even if it devastates the other person.  I am reminded (only) of the Pharisees who rammed the law down the throats of others without the slightest concern for their plight and suffering.  Matthew 23:4 "They tie up heavy burdens ³ (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."

I recall once while in a psychiatric hospital.  There was a Catholic Mass next day and so I rung an Order of priests to ask if something was a mortal sin or not and could I go to Holy Communion - explaining to Father I was ill in a psychiatric hospital.  Father answered that one cannot receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin and hung up. I did not go to Holy Communion and was quite upset about the state of my soul - I found out later that I was not in a state of mortal sin at all.  A priest friend called in to visit me and I went to Confession to him.

I am reminded (only) too of St Paul and his declaration that he would rather d a m n  his own soul to save the souls of his fellows Jews. Romans 9:3 "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh".  To be honest, brutally honest, I would rather put myself in jeopardy in certain instances only and take my chances with God than cause real distress and suffering to another.  It's not presumption which is to presume God will be Merciful.  Pas du tout.  I know, I know, I am headed for Hell for sure.  "Judge not that you not be judged" just went out the window.  "Man judges appearances, but The Lord knows the heart" (Book of Samuel).

I don't think it is all about receiving Holy Communion unworthily, it is about identifying what exactly is unworthy (i.e. Chapter 8 Amoris Laetitia).  The Law is very much black and white.  But there are shades of grey nevertheless.  The example I use to illustrate a shade of grey is a law we have here for pedestrians i.e. that one must cross straight across a road and not on an angle and it is a good law that can avoid unnecessary accidents.  However, if there has been an accident and if one walks straight across, one would walk right into the middle of the accident, one would have to be completely and totally nutty to not cross the road on an angle and avoid the accident.  That does not change the law one iota - merely illustrates a shade of grey when the law does not apply.

Go for it, Nihil  ..............  ..........

Edited November 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Nihil Obstat]

The arguments of Burke et al. are disseminated. To them there is nothing I could hope to add. "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

[Luigi]

Ain't no law ever been written that can cover every possible circumstance. That's why pastoral praxis is so important - if the law covered every possible situation, we could just look stuff up in the books and wouldn't need any pastors. 

The other problem that has traditionally been associated with annulments is the proof. The person filing for the annulment has to fill out all sorts of paperwork, and friends of the parties who knew them (well) before their marriage, at the time of their marriage, and after their marriage have to fill out similar paperwork. If the paperwork supports the claims of the party who files for the annulment, the Church feels she has the necessary proof to declare that the marriage was never valid.

BUT,

- if the friends aren't around any more (died, moved, no longer friends), or

- if they were oblivious to what was happening, or if the parties kept stuff secret, or

- if they didn't keep meticulous notes and it's all kind of blurry now, or

- if they aren't articulate writers, or

- if they want to remain friends with both parties so don't care to file the paperwork,

THEN the Church doesn't have enough proof/documentation to make an accurate determination. 

And then there's the cost of the process - it's a legitimate cost - a whole lot of people have to read a whole lot of documentation, and discuss it, and yada yada yada - I get all that. 

But an invalid marriage is still invalid whether the parties involved can prove it according to established Church procedure, or whether they can afford to prove it either. 

 

I'm just saying, it's complicated. And laws don't handle complicated situations at all well. If the Holy Spirit of God moves the Vicar of Christ to say that: 1.mercy, and 2. a continued relationship with the Church, 3. with the objective of saving souls should be the guiding principles in these matters, then I'm standing by the Vicar of Christ, regardless of how holy and honorable any given four cardinals are. 

[LittleWaySoul]

17 minutes ago, Luigi said:

And then there's the cost of the process - it's a legitimate cost - a whole lot of people have to read a whole lot of documentation, and discuss it, and yada yada yada - I get all that. 

Actually, part of Mitis Iudex was to require that the annulment process be free, or by donation only. 

[McM RSCJ]

In today's Letter to close the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis repeats again the pastoral call to accompany and be merciful to those whose marriages or marriage histories and failures are painful or complex.  No mention of any Canon 915 or of any canon.  No insistence on absolute prohibition on reception of the Eucharist for a divorced person seeking to return to the Church.  Where is the "confusion" and "scandal" some of you insist are at work?

 

14. "At a time like our own, marked by many crises, including that of the family, it is important to offer a word of comfort and strength to our families. The gift of matrimony is a great calling to which spouses, with the grace of Christ, respond with a love that is generous, faithful and patient. The beauty of the family endures unchanged, despite so many problems and alternative proposals: “The joy of love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church”.[16] The journey of life that leads a man and a woman to meet one other, to love one another and to promise mutual fidelity before God, is often interrupted by suffering, betrayal and loneliness. Joy at the gift of children is accompanied by concern about their growth and education, and their prospects for happiness and fulfilment in life.

The grace of the sacrament of Marriage not only strengthens the family to be a privileged place for practising mercy, but also commits the Christian community and all its pastoral activity to uphold the great positive value of the family. This Jubilee Year cannot overlook the complexity of the current realities of family life. The experience of mercy enables us to regard all human problems from the standpoint of God’s love, which never tires of welcoming and accompanying.[17]

We have to remember each of us carries the richness and the burdens of our personal history; this is what makes us different from everyone else. Our life, with its joys and sorrows, is something unique and unrepeatable that takes place under the merciful gaze of God. This demands, especially of priests, a careful, profound and far-sighted spiritual discernment, so that everyone, none excluded, can feel accepted by God, participate actively in the life of the community and be part of that People of God which journeys tirelessly towards the fullness of his kingdom of justice, love, forgiveness and mercy.

 

As a religious, I have often wondered why some Catholics insist on putting heavy burdens on lay persons (as Barbara Therese pointed out so eloquently) when no such burdens are demanded of Priests who leave the priesthood.  They can go to Communion.  They can also get married in the Church if they are laicized.  Men and Women Religious who have made final vows but then leave their Orders are under no such indictment.  They can go to Communion or marry.  Moreover, Priests and Religious often have long years of preparation and spiritual and psychological formation and accompaniment before ordination or final vows.  And yet when they walk away from their  final vows, made publicly, or their ordination (Thou art a Priest forever according. . . .) they are not excluded from the Eucharistic Assembly. 

 

 

'

[Maggyie]

2 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

In today's Letter to close the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis repeats again the pastoral call to accompany and be merciful to those whose marriages or marriage histories and failures are painful or complex.  No mention of any Canon 915 or of any canon.  No insistence on absolute prohibition on reception of the Eucharist for a divorced person seeking to return to the Church.  Where is the "confusion" and "scandal" some of you insist are at work?

 

14. "At a time like our own, marked by many crises, including that of the family, it is important to offer a word of comfort and strength to our families. The gift of matrimony is a great calling to which spouses, with the grace of Christ, respond with a love that is generous, faithful and patient. The beauty of the family endures unchanged, despite so many problems and alternative proposals: “The joy of love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church”.[16] The journey of life that leads a man and a woman to meet one other, to love one another and to promise mutual fidelity before God, is often interrupted by suffering, betrayal and loneliness. Joy at the gift of children is accompanied by concern about their growth and education, and their prospects for happiness and fulfilment in life.

 

The grace of the sacrament of Marriage not only strengthens the family to be a privileged place for practising mercy, but also commits the Christian community and all its pastoral activity to uphold the great positive value of the family. This Jubilee Year cannot overlook the complexity of the current realities of family life. The experience of mercy enables us to regard all human problems from the standpoint of God’s love, which never tires of welcoming and accompanying.[17]

 

We have to remember each of us carries the richness and the burdens of our personal history; this is what makes us different from everyone else. Our life, with its joys and sorrows, is something unique and unrepeatable that takes place under the merciful gaze of God. This demands, especially of priests, a careful, profound and far-sighted spiritual discernment, so that everyone, none excluded, can feel accepted by God, participate actively in the life of the community and be part of that People of God which journeys tirelessly towards the fullness of his kingdom of justice, love, forgiveness and mercy.

 

As a religious, I have often wondered why some Catholics insist on putting heavy burdens on lay persons (as Barbara Therese pointed out so eloquently) when no such burdens are demanded of Priests who leave the priesthood.  They can go to Communion.  They can also get married in the Church if they are laicized.  Men and Women Religious who have made final vows but then leave their Orders are under no such indictment.  They can go to Communion or marry.  Moreover, Priests and Religious often have long years of preparation and spiritual and psychological formation and accompaniment before ordination or final vows.  And yet when they walk away from their  final vows, made publicly, or their ordination (Thou art a Priest forever according. . . .) they are not excluded from the Eucharistic Assembly. 

 

 

 

'

Virtually no one is excluded from the Eucharistic assembly. What requires discernment is receiving the Eucharist.

And as BarbaraTherese experience shows, a good priest who is knowledgeable will be able to help individuals understand what constitutes a mortal sin and so forth. Personally I think it is challenging for anyone, even mentally healthy, to commit a truly mortal sin. 

BUT it is possible to sin mortally, and it isn't necessary to change any part of our teaching or practice to take mitigating circumstances into account.  That is already done every day. 

Although religious life is the objectively superior vocation, marriage has a uniquely high dignity in being raised to a sacrament by the words of Jesus Himself. The Church governs religious life and has the ability to bind and loose those bonds she ties and unties. But the bonds of marriage are tied by Christ Himself. The Church admits: she has no power here. It may be necessary for the duties of marriage to cease and a couple to live apart and divorce, but their character as a married couple can never be changed until death. It's not the Church that levels that "burden" it's Jesus.

[Peace]

32 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Personally I think it is challenging for anyone, even mentally healthy, to commit a truly mortal sin.

Could you please explain? 

I don't see how someone reaches that conclusion without some kind of "fundamental option" type of theory.

[Maggyie]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Could you please explain? 

I don't see how someone reaches that conclusion without some kind of "fundamental option" type of theory.

hmm I don't know what a fundamental option is? To be mortal a sin has to be grave evil chosen freely with full knowledge.

There is so much ignorance and poor catechesis that perhaps half the Catholics in the world don't know right from wrong beyond the most superficial reading of the 10 commandments. This generally prevents them from outright strangling people or stealing automobiles for entertainment, but the finer points, not so much. 

Then freely: take for example  sexual sins, which in origin, have the same mitigating factors as assigned to masturbation in the Catechism: force of habit, immaturity, anxiety, psychological or social factors. Most people are carried along by their biology. I'm not pooh poohing it, these things are very wrong. 

So between these two things (knowledge and free choice) culpability is reduced pretty far. Responsibility is not reduced, nor is gravity, but the punishment (a severed relationship with God) has to fit the crime (grave evil freely chosen in full knowledge). 

[Guest]

Having lived pre V2, it was common in my experience to think that anything remotely serious was what constituted "grave matter" and if you knew it was grave matter and consented to it, you were in the state of mortal sin.  Grave matter and mortal sin are not the same at all - and as the Catechism quite clearly states.  My other point is that too often anything that is indeed grave matter is termed mortal sin, not grave matter.  Among Catholics generally in my experience still, very little is understood about full knowledge and full consent.

2 hours ago, Maggyie said:

And as BarbaraTherese experience shows, a good priest who is knowledgeable will be able to help individuals understand what constitutes a mortal sin and so forth. Personally I think it is challenging for anyone, even mentally healthy, to commit a truly mortal sin. 

I agree with the above.  Coming to understanding of one's moral state in any sort of difficult or complex circumstances for any person would be rarely, I think, an event or one appointment with a priest.  It will be a journey and a priest willing with compassion and understanding to accompany one on that journey is a rich blessing.  One just might arrive at intellectual understanding - but that will not of necessity change the negative feeling level and that can be a quite severe and unhappy experience extended over time and long after one has made a Good Confession.

I too think that that sin which will completely break one's relationship with God and His Church (mortal sin) may not at all be common, including among those who do not suffer any sort of mental illness.  Mortal sin may not be very common, most often due to those mitigating circumstances the CCC outlines. 

And it is mitigating circumstances that I think Pope Francis is highlighting.  It is not to relax any sort of Church Law because that still stands without question, it is to understand the full nature of mortal sin, which includes any mitigating circumstances - because the latter too is also Church Law without question.

It is the state of mortal sin alone that precludes a person from Holy Communion.  To condemn a person's state of soul and demand refraining from Holy Communion is a declaration by implication that the person is totally estranged from God and His Church.   It is a very serious move.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think it is seriously imprudent to try to devise systems by which mortal sin is rare. A short consultation with all the saints throughout history strongly suggests that mortal sin is shockingly prevalent among us. It is only by the grace and will of God that we resist the temptation to sin.

[Guest]

It is not a question of "devising systems by which mortal sin is rare".  That is to have the answer and seek to justify it and a misinterpretation.

Rather it is to search for the truth where mortal sin is concerned in this instance.

[Guest]

Even if mortal sin should be found to be far more prevalent than thought, The Grace, Love and Mercy of God is by far greater and available to all.

Jimmy Akin - CA Apologist http://jimmyakin.com/2006/12/assessing_morta.html
 

Quote

 

"Assessing Mortal Sin"

I’ll do what I can, but I’m not sure how much light can be shed on this question. The fact is that the Church has a stronger grasp on the principles involved in this area than it has on how they are to be applied in practice. This is one reason that the Church is reluctant to judge that a person has actually committed a mortal sin. It can recognize that he has committed an objectively grave act, but it is hard to assess his personal level of culpability (i.e., his understanding of what he was doing and how freely he did it anyway).

It may be that further doctrinal development will clarify how the consent and knowledge criteria are to be concretely applied, or there may just be something intrinsically slippery and subjective about these that will always make it hard to assess these matters.

Because of the difficulty we have in assessing them, the general rule for most people (i.e., those with a lax conscience or a normal conscience) is that if you think you may have committed a mortal sin then go ahead and confess it, just to be safe.

The exception to this rule is people who have a scrupulous conscience. For them the rule is do not confess unless you are sure that you have committed a mortal sin.

 

The last two paragraphs contain excellent advice.