Some Q & A re Amoris Laetitia (Catholic Answers)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

AL does say good things.

The problem is that, sometimes, what is affirmed with one hand is apparently denied with the other.

After some of the "good" things he says, there is a "but the Church cannot forget those who..." which sometimes does not make concrete references to repentance with purpose of amendment. 

Altogether, it is a (with all due respect to +Bellarmine et al) "Jesuitical" exhortation which can be understood either way. Hence the importance of the dubia, to give clear answers. 

Eventually it will be settled, Jack.  Some commentaries I have read think it might not be until the next pontificate.  Whatever The Church decides with authority formally will be the way I will travel,  and whatever the outcome of it all.  The Doctrine of Divine Providence.  Meanwhile, I am responding to any queries about AL and the dubia as best I am able and in Hope reflecting where things are at just now.  I am doing what I can*** and leaving the rest to God (St Mary of The Cross MacKillop - first Aussie saint).

***(St Mary said to "do what you can" - not thankfully "do your best" - I never have known when I have done my best, but I know when I am doing what I can)

[Nihil Obstat]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah. It's dangerous. Tough to argue with that.

Are you of the mind that the priest should decide who is eligible, or whether the person who receives should decide for himself if he is eligible?

Different situation of course, but the whole thing seems pretty dangerous from the perspective of a priest nowadays. Given the state of the Catholic world (at least in the US) I wonder how many people in line for communion at any given time may be in a state of mortal sin?

A few weeks ago before I received the priest asked me "Are you Catholic?" I was at a small parish out of town so perhaps he did not recognize me. I have no problem with that, but if that is cool, why not ask everybody "did you use contraception last month?" or any other similar question before distributing communion? You could seemingly wipe out about 75% of people in line with that question alone.

If a primary role of the person distributing communion is to ensure that people receiving are not in a state of mortal sin, rather than leaving this determination up to the individual, the seemingly prudent thing to do would be to deny communion to most people, and except out people that the priest has a good reason to know are living out the faith faithfully.  Or you could do something like requiring confession the day before communion. People could get a confession stamp or wrist band before receiving communion, similar to how young people get a stamp at a bar indicating that their age has been checked!!

Canon 915 vs. 916. Manifest public sinners are to be denied by the minister of holy Communion. For sins of an occult nature, the communicant himself should refrain from receiving. But you would have known that answer if you were making an effort to understand the Church's position.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Canon 915 vs. 916. Manifest public sinners are to be denied by the minister of holy Communion. For sins of an occult nature, the communicant himself should refrain from receiving. But you would have known that answer if you were making an effort to understand the Church's position.

I was asking for your opinion actually. But I suppose I should have known that your answer would have been "Here is what the book of rules says."

Carry on.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

I was asking for your opinion actually. But I suppose I should have known that your answer would have been "Here is what the book of rules says."

Carry on.

My opinion is that Canons 915 and 916 function fine and communion must be denied to those in a state of manifest grave sin. These canons are based strongly in divine law and do not leave room for 'loosening' according to principles of false mercy and sentimentalism.

[Jack4]

8 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

...principles of false mercy and sentimentalism.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Christ/delusions-devil.htm by St Alphonsus Liguori

You might find this to be an interesting read. 

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

My opinion is that Canons 915 and 916 function fine and communion must be denied to those in a state of manifest grave sin.

 Fair enough.

8 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

These canons are based strongly in divine law

Well. Either the divine law prohibits a change or it does not. This is where people who would deny a change seem to be weak. Other than that one statement in Familiaris, I do not see much that would logically or authoritatively lead to the conclusion that it does.

I honestly don't see too many people (even the more "conservative" types) asserting that the divine law prohibits it.  But perhaps I have not looked in the right places.

8 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

and do not leave room for 'loosening' according to principles of false mercy and sentimentalism.

Certainly.

[Nihil Obstat]

You do not see any justification in the moral law for denying public sinners access to communion if they do not repent and mend their public sins? Really?

[Nihil Obstat]

Sacramentum Caritatis:

29. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God's love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church's pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church's practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You do not see any justification in the moral law for denying public sinners access to communion if they do not repent and mend their public sins? Really?

Is that what I wrote?

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Sacramentum Caritatis:

29. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God's love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church's pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church's practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.

This is cool, but you are moving in the wrong direction in time. You need to be going back from Familiaris, not forward. Pope Benedict basically quotes the relevant passage from Familiaris verbatim, so you aren't really adding anything to Familiaris except an indication that a subsequent Pope agrees with it. We already knew that there are plenty of people who agree with it. 

The question we are asking is, to the extent that one may interpret Familiaris as asserting that the result is mandated by the divine law (and even that is a stretch), would such an interpretation be correct? You need to go beyond the document (or a mere quotation of the document) to demonstrate that. 

If you look at the original quote in Familiaris, you don't see any reference to a Church Father or other authority for the assertion. It seems to be novel at the time it was written - this seems to be what Staples concludes if you read the above links.

And just think about the above quote itself. 1) The fact that a practice is based on scripture does not mean that it is mandated by scripture (head coverings for  women, or priestly celibacy, for example). 2) The chapter of Mark that is quoted says that a person who divorces and remarries sins. That is it. It says nothing about them being prohibited from participating in communion. 

As for the other part in bold, I wrote about that in the other thread. You said it was too much to respond to, which is perfectly fine by me.

Again, to be clear, I abide by the current practice of the living authorities within the Church. But if those same authorities change the practice I do not think the issue is so clear cut so as to justify you or me saying that they would contradict the mandates of divine law. 

If Pope Francis came out and said "All abortions are cool. Feel free to abort away." I would be right there with you in declaring him a heretic, but the communion question is much more grey.

[Nihil Obstat]

The denying of communion to those in manifest public sin is part of essentially immemorial practice of the Church. Benedict refers to that, saying it is based in Scripture and part of the Church's constant teaching. John Paul referred to it in Familiaris as a practice reaffirmed. Not something new. The novelty is in Amoris and its interpretation. Unless you also want to argue that John Paul, in saying that he re-affirms the Church's practice, was factually mistaken and was actually just inventing something himself.
Not only is it not a new practice, but it is a practice enshrined in canon law specifically because the moral law requires it. This is not simply legalese that can be altered without consequence. John Paul affirms this, saying first that this is based in Eucharistic theology. Benedict agrees entirely in S.C.. Changing the canon law on this subject is, by its very nature, an attempt to change the moral law upon which the canon is based. That is not a conclusion that can be avoided.

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The denying of communion to those in manifest public sin is part of essentially immemorial practice of the Church. Benedict refers to that, saying it is based in Scripture and part of the Church's constant teaching. John Paul referred to it in Familiaris as a practice reaffirmed. Not something new. The novelty is in Amoris and its interpretation. Unless you also want to argue that John Paul, in saying that he re-affirms the Church's practice, was factually mistaken and was actually just inventing something himself.

Well obviously the practice is very old. I have already admitted as much, and that changing it would be a break from tradition. 

What I meant by "novel" was not the practice itself, but the idea that the practice cannot be changed without violating the divine law (if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that this is what Familiaris asserts).

If that is such a well established idea "from time immemorial" there should be at least one Church Father or Doctor somewhere in the 2000 year history of the Church that says "Divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried to participate in communion." It really isn't that difficult of a thing to write, is it? 

I will try to check Ott when I have some time to see if there is such a statement. Haven't seen it yet.

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It is a practice enshrined in canon law specifically because the moral law requires it.

In your private opinion it is. But perhaps the Pope feels differently. If that happens to be the case, with all due respect to your ability to interpret Scripture and Tradition, I am gonna have to stick with the current pope. 

Otherwise its a slippery slope right back into protestantism. Jesus left the Church with a living authority structure for a reason. If you are so quick to disagree whenever you see a change, why not just eliminate the office altogether and let each Catholic interpret what the divine law mandates for himself? It seems that the pope is useful to you only insofar as he is consistent with your own private interpretation. That isn't really how Jesus set up the Church.

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

This is not simply legalese that can be altered without consequence. John Paul affirms this, saying first that this is based in Eucharistic theology. Benedict agrees entirely in S.C..

And if Pope Francis and the next two popes disagree? Does team communion eek out a three to two victory over team denial?

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Changing the canon law on this subject is, by its very nature, an attempt to change the moral law upon which the canon is based.

Maybe, but as things stand now that is just your opinion. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on it. 

FWIW, I do not think that he should change the rule. If I were Pope I suppose that I would leave it as it is, for prudential reasons if nothing else. 

But I think that you would be ovestepping your bounds, and basically just replacing the Pope's judgement with your own, by the suggestion that he would violate the moral law if he changes the practice based on what he sees as for the good of the Church. If you want to make that assertion you have a high burden of proof.

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well obviously the practice is very old. I have already admitted as much, and that changing it would be a break from tradition. 

What I meant by "novel" was not the practice itself, but the idea that the practice cannot be changed without violating the divine law (if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that this is what Familiaris asserts).

If that is such a well established idea "from time immemorial" there should be at least one Church Father or Doctor somewhere in the 2000 year history of the Church that says "Divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried to participate in communion." It really isn't that difficult of a thing to write, is it? 

I will try to check Ott when I have some time to see if there is such a statement. Haven't seen it yet.

In your private opinion it is. But perhaps the Pope feels differently. If that happens to be the case, with all due respect to your ability to interpret Scripture and Tradition, I am gonna have to stick with the current pope. 

Otherwise its a slippery slope right back into protestantism. Jesus left the Church with a living authority structure for a reason. If you are so quick to disagree whenever you see a change, why not just eliminate the office altogether and let each Catholic interpret what the divine law mandates for himself? It seems that the pope is useful to you only insofar as he is consistent with your own private interpretation. That isn't really how Jesus set up the Church.

And if Pope Francis and the next two popes disagree? Does team communion eek out a three to two victory over team denial?

Maybe, but as things stand now that is just your opinion. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on it. 

FWIW, I do not think that he should change the rule. If I were Pope I suppose that I would leave it as it is, for prudential reasons if nothing else. 

But I think that you would be ovestepping your bounds, and basically just replacing the Pope's judgement with your own, by the suggestion that he would violate the moral law if he changes the practice based on what he sees as for the good of the Church. If you want to make that assertion you have a high burden of proof.

"If that is such a well established idea "from time immemorial" there should be at least one Church Father or Doctor somewhere in the 2000 year history of the Church that says "Divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried to participate in communion." It really isn't that difficult of a thing to write, is it?"

You will have no trouble finding saints and doctors who state either directly or in reference to other topics that manifest public sinners are to be denied communion. Again, this is one of those things that nobody, except apparently you, think is up for questioning. Not the most ardent supporters of Amoris Laetitia, or Kasper, or Francis, or even Spadaro. Nobody thinks that is the case.

"In your private opinion it is. But perhaps the Pope feels differently. If that happens to be the case, with all due respect to your ability to interpret Scripture and Tradition, I am gonna have to stick with the current pope."

It also seems to be the authoritative opinion of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And I bet you it won't take me long to find a few others if you really want to quibble about it. Shall we start reading Arcanum and Casti Connubii to start? Maybe we can compare either of those to chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. 

"And if Pope Francis and the next two popes disagree? Does team communion eek out a three to two victory over team denial"

As Vatican I (re-) established, the pope does not get to create new doctrines, and 'developments' of doctrine can never contradict what had previously been held. If a teaching is novel, it is an error. Catholicism does not admit novel teachings. The Pope is a caretaker, a custodian, a faithful transmitter, and a warden. He is not himself a font of revelation.

"But I think that you would be ovestepping your bounds, and basically just replacing the Pope's judgement with your own"

I have no opinions of my own. Except that academic art is the height of the artistry of painting, and that Athanasius Schneider is probably a saint.   
I do not compare my own judgement against Pope Francis'. I only seek to follow what the Church has always taught.

You said that "changing it would be a break from tradition." This is telling. Catholics do not get to break from tradition. No wordplay justifies it. No shades of grey justify it. No gradualism justifies it. Tradition is irreformable. Whether or not this generation re-discovers that truth remains to be seen, but it will happen in God's time.

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You will have no trouble finding saints and doctors who state either directly or in reference to other topics that manifest public sinners are to be denied communion.

Perhaps we are talking past each other again. I already admitted that the practice of denying them is well well established in the history of the Church.

I  stated that you should be able to produce at least one statement that says that the divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried from participating in communion.

The difference is between what the Church has done and what She is bound to do. You are proposing that the practice cannot be changed, so you need to produce someone who says that the practice cannot be changed. I am not even sure if St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict went this far, but am willing to concede it for the time being.

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It also seems to be the authoritative opinion of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And I bet you it won't take me long to find a few others if you really want to quibble about it. Shall we start reading Arcanum and Casti Connubii to start?

I have read Casti but not the other. I do not recall there being any statement in it to the effect that the divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried from participating in communion. Do you have any specific paragraph in mind concerning that.

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Maybe we can compare either of those to chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. 

Be my guest. I bet that your wisdom on these matters would be right up there with the words of St. Peter himself. Please educate us weak minded Catholics on the errors of our pope.

But how about you produce one clear statement from a Church Father or other Doctor that the divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried from participating in communion? It is not as though divorce or communion are new topics.

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If a teaching is novel, it is an error. Catholicism does not admit novel teachings.

Your problem is that this applies to what you are asserting. You have yet to demonstrate that the historical teaching of the Church is that the divine law prohibits the divorced and remarried from participating in communion. 

If you want to assert that Pope Francis is wrong if he happens to disagree with St. John Paul II, you must first establish that St. John Paul II is correct. You have not done that.

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The Pope is a caretaker, a custodian, a faithful transmitter, and a warden. He is not himself a font of revelation.

Well obviously revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. But today we are tasked with determining what that revelation was. The question is who decides. Nihil or the living magisterium of the Church? 

Are you really so confident that your interpretation of Scripture and Tradition surpasses the Pope? Maybe we should elect you the next pope.

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not compare my own judgement against Pope Francis'. I only seek to follow what the Church has always taught.

And what if your interpretation of what the Church has always taught happens to be wrong? Why have a magisterium if ultimately you will decide for yourself? 

And will you submit to your pope if he changes the practice?

It kind of seems that you do not need a pope or bishops. You seem to need only people who will enforce whatever you have privately concluded to be the teaching of the Church.

24 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You said that "changing it would be a break from tradition." This is telling. Catholics do not get to break from tradition. No wordplay justifies it. No shades of grey justify it. No gradualism justifies it. Tradition is irreformable. Whether or not this generation re-discovers that truth remains to be seen, but it will happen in God's time.

Please note my different usage of tradition with a lower case T and Tradition with an upper case T in my post above. If I wrote "break from Tradition" you would have a point. I did not.

[KnightofChrist]

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

The Code of Canon Law establishes that "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of "grave sin", it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who "obstinately" persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself."

This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term "unworthy": "Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist" (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.

2. Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon's substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance.

[...]

Continue reading...