FILIAL CORRECTION of Pope Francis

[Jack4]

On 9/25/2017 at 10:33 PM, McM RSCJ said:

First, no, I agree with the Church that action to destroy a marriage is grievously sinful--but I don't think that is the point at stake.

I'm not sure what you mean by action to destroy a marriage. 

When people marry (and this is the marriage presumed to be valid) and they separate/divorce civilly, do not receive a recognition of nullity;

and before the death of one spouse, the other civilly remarries,

the second "marriage" cannot be presumed to be valid. 

Hence, if the partners of the second "union" live in more uxorio, that can be considered a sin against the sixth commandment, no?

On 9/26/2017 at 2:21 AM, Luigi said:

In the pioneer period of North American history, there was a severe shortage of priests. Catholics in areas like Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky often married without benefit of the sacrament of marriage, because no priest was available. When a priest did become available, he would "regularize" those marriages. I don't personally know what all that entailed - confession? then the sacrament of marriage? an explanation from each individual about the circumstances of their marriage? In any case, it was possible for those who were "living in sin" to be reinstated into the Church and its sacramental life.

Afaik, in the Latin tradition, a priest is not necessarily required for the validity of Holy Matrimony and hence, the sixth commandment would not come into play. 

[Jack4]

On 9/26/2017 at 2:21 AM, Luigi said:

We are all sinners. If the Church chooses casting off of sinners, there would soon be no Church at all. The Church is not for perfect people, the Church is for sinners who are trying to improve. (Who was it that said, "A saint is a sinner who kept trying"?) Casting off is characteristic of Puritanism and other non-Catholic Christian traditions.

Are the following words too harsh:

Familiaris Consortio 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."

Reconcilatio et Penitentia 34: "I consider it my duty to mention at this point, if very briefly, a pastoral case that the synod dealt with-insofar as it was able to do so-and which it also considered in one of the propositions. I am referring to certain situations, not infrequent today, affecting Christians who wish to continue their sacramental religious practice, but who are prevented from doing so by their personal condition, which is not in harmony with the commitments freely undertaken before God and the church. These are situations which seem particularly delicate and almost inextricable.

Numerous interventions during the synod, expressing the general thought of the fathers, emphasized the coexistence and mutual influence of two equally important principles in relation to these cases. The first principle is that of compassion and mercy, whereby the church, as the continuer in history of Christ's presence and work, not wishing the death of the sinner but that the sinner should be converted and live,(197) and careful not to break the bruised reed or to quench the dimly burning wick,(198) ever seeks to offer, as far as possible, the path of return to God and of reconciliation with him. The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.

On this matter, which also deeply torments our pastoral hearts, it seemed my precise duty to say clear words in the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, as regards the case of the divorced and remarried,(199) and likewise the case of Christians living together in an irregular union.

At the same time and together with the synod, I feel that it is my clear duty to urge the ecclesial communities and especially the bishops to provide all possible assistance to those priests who have fallen short of the grave commitments which they undertook at their ordination and who are living in irregular situations. None of these brothers of ours should feel abandoned by the church.

For all those who are not at the present moment in the objective conditions required by the sacrament of penance, the church's manifestations of maternal kindness, the support of acts of piety apart from sacramental ones, a sincere effort to maintain contact with the Lord, attendance at Mass and the frequent repetition of acts of faith, hope, charity and sorrow made as perfectly as possible can prepare the way for full reconciliation at the hour that providence alone knows."

To this an be added Sacramentum Caritatis nos. 27-29 and Annus Internationalis Familiae  I strongly recommend that you read the full texts.

On 9/26/2017 at 5:30 AM, Luigi said:

But I do know that the Church has ways for people to get right with God - through the sacrament of Penance, 

Yes, but firm purpose of amendment is a condition for the validity of the same absolution. 

Quote

through annulment

Annulment does not break a marriage bond, it only recognizes that it was not valid in the first plae to begin with. 

Quote

As far as I can tell, the Church exists to help people get right with God.

While it is true that to evoke conversion and penance in man's heart and to offer him the gift of reconciliation is the specific mission of the church as she continues the redemptive work of her divine founder,  it must also be kept in mind that genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness.

 

Quote

... when a pope, duly elected by the College of Cardinals under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, initiates some sort of pastoral outreach, I have to trust that said pope is still working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Honorius et al

[Jack4]

On 9/26/2017 at 5:58 AM, McM RSCJ said:

one not-exactly-orthodox bishop

Please show how Msgr Fellay is not orthodox. And explain why the society can absolve in Confession  and celebrate marriages with faculty granted by this Pope?

On 9/26/2017 at 5:58 AM, McM RSCJ said:

What does any of this have to do with the Gospel and the faithful following of Jesus in our day? 

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

20 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Has Pope Francis actually come out and said he has supported divorce, remarriage and communion or is it just people think he was not being clear enough in AL?

It can be found in the actual text of the filial correction.

On 9/26/2017 at 5:58 AM, McM RSCJ said:

I presume you are not trying to confine God and God's Spirit to a box you have defined.

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say, ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jack4

[Jack4]

2 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

No, I have not read or pondered the statement of the Argentine Bishops.  My Spanish, alas, is not adequate to nuanced understanding, and I am not Argentine...

I'm not asking you about the Argentine Bishops' statement because if your Spanish is up to the task, mine is not.   If the Argentine Bishops have authored an official translation in English-,point me to it, and I will read when possible, just out of a desire to learn more about the Church universal.

 

I don't know if the translations are official. 

Crux - which cannot be alleged to be biased toward the traditionalists - gives the following translation:

6) In more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it is acknowledged that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351).
These sacraments, in turn, prepare the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.
7) However, it should not be understood that this possibility implies unlimited access to sacraments, or that all situations warrant such unlimited access. The proposal is to properly discern each case. For example, special care should be taken of “a new union arising from a recent divorce” or “the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family” (298). Also, when there is a sort of apology or ostentation of the person’s situation “as if it were part of the Christian ideal” (297). In these difficult cases, we should be patient companions, and seek a path of reinstatement (cf. 297, 299).
8) It is always important to guide people to stand before God with their conscience. A useful tool to do this is the “examination of con­science” proposed by Amoris laetitia 300, specifically in relation to “how did they act towards their children” or the abandoned partner. Where there have been unresolved injustices, providing access to sacraments is particularly outrageous.
9) It may be convenient for an eventual access to sacraments to take place in a discreet manner, especially if troublesome situations can be anticipated. At the same time, however, the community should be accompanied so that it may grow in its spirit of understanding and acceptance, without letting this situation create confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage. The community is an instrument of mercy, which is “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” (297).
10) Discernment is not closed, because it “is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can ena­ble the ideal to be more fully realized” (303), according to the “law of gradualness” (295) and with confidence in the help of grace.

The actual text of the correction quotes the Spanish original, and gives the following translation: 

6) In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been
obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a
path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific
case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302),
especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming
the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of access to the
sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These
sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the
power of grace. …
9) It may be right for eventual access to sacraments to take place privately, especially 
where situations of conflict might arise. But at the same time, we have to accompany
our communities in their growing understanding and welcome, without this implying
creating confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage.
The community is an instrument of mercy, which is “unmerited, unconditional and
gratuitous” (297).
10) Discernment is not closed, because it “is dynamic; it must remain ever open to
new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more
fully realized” (303), according to the “law of gradualness” (295) and with confidence
in the help of grace.

2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Finally, did Pope Francis personally endorse that letter? Or did the newspaper say he did? Is there some document that Pope Francis wrote that shows he endorses this description of AL?

The Spanish original of Pope Francis' letter can be found on the Vatican/Holy See's website.

2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

In your understanding does AL give a divorced and remarried couple who continues to have sex permission to receive communion while continue their lifestyle?

AL itself is ambiguous. From Pope Francis' later words and omissions, I judge that he supports giving Communion to "remarried divorcees".

7 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

The Spanish original of Pope Francis' letter can be found on the Vatican/Holy See's website.

The Spanish original of the BI bishops' draft can also be found. 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html

[Maggyie]

13 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Maggie:  

One question and one comment:

Question:

1.  Have you read Amoris Laetitia--and, if so, what passages are you rejecting and why?  (You went after me for pointing out some teaching in that text I not only believe but find uplifting.)

2.  I am not a "wolf."  And I think it was wrong of you to call me that.  I don't understand why such a comment belongs on a website that professes to be Catholic.

Yes I've read it. The problem with AL is not explicit nonsense, but that it's ambiguous and leaves room for people like yourself to make mischief. If you can't read Spanish then read some of Archbishop Blaise Cupich's comments in English. Or the Maltese bishops statements, which are officially in English. 

I can't imagine closing my eyes to the world around me and dismissing others as Henny Penny sky-is-falling types. What a strain it would be! You remind me of people who don't believe in climate change. They will be saying "what problem? there is no problem!" until the sea laps over their heads. 

This type also is similar to SSPXers who insist they are in good standing with the Church, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Or Fr James Martin SJ who does his jesuitical act on sexuality. Or fans of Donald Trump. Who are you gonna believe, him or your lying eyes? 

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Knight of Christ:

No, I have not read or pondered the statement of the Argentine Bishops.  My Spanish, alas, is not adequate to nuanced understanding, and I am not Argentine.

There are English translations available. Here, I'll link to one for you. Now you should be able to adequately read it. https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/09/18/guidelines-buenos-aires-bishops-divorcedremarried/

Quote

I have read references to the statement--some quite positive, but at least the Correction you posted, as quite negative.

I have been focusing on Amoris Laetitia.  I think the Synod focused on real concerns of the Church--wide-ranging, regarding families and married commitment.  I think Amoris Laetitia communicates the findings of the Synod in the voice and teaching of Pope Francis.  I think Amoris Laetitia does indeed lay out a discernment path for full communion for some who are in a second marriage subsequent on divorce of at least one of the parties. I think it does this without undermining the ideal of faithful commitment in marriage. 

I find this pastoral approach consonant with the Gospel--so therefore confirming and inspiring.  But that is me.  I am just one person trying to listen to the Church and to the Spirit always acting anew in every time and culture.  (That I am not disturbed or confused does not mean I am either a "heretic" or a "wolf.") 

Now, my turn to ask you:

Have you read Amoris Laetitia carefully and prayerfully.  If so, what specific passage do you find problematic and why? 

(I'm not asking you about the Argentine Bishops' statement because if your Spanish is up to the task, mine is not.   If the Argentine Bishops have authored an official translation in English-,point me to it, and I will read when possible, just out of a desire to learn more about the Church universal.)

 

Yes, I have read AL. I find it full of ambiguity, and confusing. I have trouble squaring it with Christ' teaching on marriage and divorce as well as all other Church teaching on those subjects. Have you answered the question, asked repeatedly of you, if divorced and remarried Catholics without repentance and change of lifestyle (ie committing acts of adultery) should receive communion? I'm not sure you've given a clear answer to that. But I've been working a great deal this week so perhaps I've missed it? I've not read the whole thread but people still seem to be asking you the same question. Why would they do that if you've answered it clearly already? 

3 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Finally, did Pope Francis personally endorse that letter? Or did the newspaper say he did? Is there some document that Pope Francis wrote that shows he endorses this description of AL? Cause maybe I am wrong but I thought the whole point of the dubia earlier was because people were confused what Pope Francis was saying in AL.

I am confused, honestly.  In your understanding does AL give a divorced and remarried couple who continues to have sex permission to receive communion while continue their lifestyle? I am honestly confused at what your trying to say, so if you could answer my question it would help out.

The Pope not only endorsed the letter approving of the Guidelines, he wrote the letter to the Bishops saying it was the only interpretation of AL. Since the letter technically carries no authoritative weight the Pope is not technically or officially teaching or endorsing heresy.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/12/pope_endorses_argentine_bishops_document_on_amoris_laetitia/1257635

Edited September 28, 2017 by KnightofChrist

[Maggyie]

Also McM, I note you failed to respond to the content of my post, which is that to get right with God, one should repent and have a firm purpose of ammendment. Do you think that's optional for some sins? Which ones? Or do you not think that? Don't worry, I don't expect a straight answer. It's not what wolf types do. Matthew 5:37

Edited September 28, 2017 by Maggyie

[Maggyie]

I should be clear also that it pains me to say it, because overall I think he's good for the Church - but the pope is doing the same thing on this issue. These problems stem from an inability to be open, transparent, and honest. Authentic life-giving dialogue is impossible when one partner can't (won't) dialogue with openness. That's why he resorted to a footnote... Effective dialogue partners don't deal in footnotes, they make their goals clear so that they can be discussed, not "snuck in."

[Grateful]

On 9/24/2017 at 5:01 PM, McM RSCJ said:

To Truthfinder:

Thank you. 

Actually I see the significance between receiving a list signatories versus a list of authors differently than you do. While you are correct that we don't receive a published list of those Staffers who worked with Pope Francis on the text of Amoris Laetitia, or Laudato Si, or Evangelii Gaudium, we don't need such a list because Pope Francis publicly proclaims himself the author.  (It is also easily possible to get a list of the Staffers who work on a particular document.)  

This text of "Filial Correction" does not proclaim any author (that I can see).  You might be correct that the Signatories are themselves the authors but:  1) It is really hard to write a group text; 2) If the Signatories are intending to claim authorship, then it does not make sense they are now asking others to sign on, after the authoring is complete.

So, for me, the text reads as anonymous.  And I never think I am obligated to read--never mind take seriously-- the words of a person or group of persons who won't stand up and take credit for his/her/their text. 

 

To Knight of Christ:

I did read the text however.  And, naturally, like any reader with an active intellect, I take in what I read while engaging what I read.  So--perhaps in error--I conclude this author, or these authors, is/are unduly invested in counteracting "modernism" and any appreciation whatsoever for Martin Luther (in this 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  I have no idea why he/she/they decided this "Elucidation" belongs in a criticism of Amoris Laetitia.  I know you want "discussion" of the text, but since I am not able to follow the logic of including this elucidation, my "discussion" is limited to acknowledging that.  Perhaps the unknown author(s) think they made the links clear in the text.  

As for the claims made in the text before the "Elucidation," I already said I find the passages quoted from Amoris Laetitia sing out the Gospel.  The passages the author(s) want me to find so troubling actually lift up my heart.

I believe Jesus, in the Gospel, sets before us the ideal of faithful and indissoluble marriage.  I also believe God is Love and Mercy, while all of us are sinners.  So I do not believe that God excludes from Mercy and Communion those who falter in the ideal.  When Jesus in the Gospel proclaims that what God has joined together no human being should put asunder (Matt 19:6), he is "protecting" a couple from those who would interfere, including parents, or religion teachers, or those with class or property or race or national interests at heart or one spouse who bewails infertility. . . etc.  And that's critically important.  But I do not think it follows that those who enter into a marriage and then fail at it are thereby "unforgivable" and excluded from the Sacraments.   Nor do I think that one when spouse abandons the other, the abandoned one must live in solitary misery in order to remain a full communicant in the Church.  

Think of all the priests who were ordained "forever" in the Order of Melchisidek who left their priesthood.  They are not excluded from the Eucharist or the Church.  Think of all the women and men Religious who leave after Perpetual Profession.  They are not excluded from Eucharist or the Church.  Why is it that celibate Priests lay this heavy burden on young marrieds who often do not know what they are getting into.  Why not, as Pope Francis, says in AL, accompany those young persons as they make sense of what happened in their lives and how they are to move forward in life and in love and in commitment. Why would "pastors" be all too willing to lay on them the cross of living without family?  And when a new love and new life comes into the wounded sinner's story, why not begin by assuming God has been at work in this blessing?  

And finally I believe that the Spirit of God acts in all times and all places.  "Lo, I am doing something new?  Can you not perceive it?"  Isaiah 43.   So I, at least, perceive the Spirit acting in the Synod and in Amoris Laetitia.   You don't?  

The anonymous author or authors of this text disagree with me.  I do not accept, however, that I am thereby a "heretic," because I do not accept their dictat of what a Catholic trying to follow Jesus Christ must believe about revelation being closed and complete in the way they think that must be understood.  

Fyi, I am not anonymous on this website.  Those are my initials and my Religious Order.  

If you hunger or thirst, let us invite you at the Heavenly Banquet of the Lamb.  This is what Jesus would do!

[McM RSCJ]

To Havoc:

You asked me the following:

"I am confused, honestly.  In your understanding does AL give a divorced and remarried couple who continues to have sex permission to receive communion while continue their lifestyle? I am honestly confused at what your trying to say, so if you could answer my question it would help out."

Do I think that Amoris Laetitia includes a thoughtful reflection on a possible, rare, path for reintegration of persons remarried after divorce, including reception of the Eucharist?  Yes, I read Amoris Laetitia as laying out that path in some rare instances, especially in sections 300, 301, 303, 305, 310, 311.  I don't agree with parsing the text up that way, though, since I think the whole of Chapter 8 is continuity and well-worth praying over.

But, Havoc, Amoris Laetitia describes in these passages the kind of honest, probably painful, discernment that is 180 degrees distant from what your wording implies:  a couple that gets a free pass "to have sex" and "continue their lifestyle" but still "receive communion."   What Francis makes clear is there can be no cut and dried rule that applies to all situations regardless  AND that any pastors who think this are not really following the teachings of Christ in the Gospels.   "By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God" (Amoris, 305). 

Again, I encourage you to take up the text of Amoris Laetitia and prayerfully work through it. 

 

   

 

 

[McM RSCJ]

To Maggie [Magyie]

Below are the words you directed to me. 

"Also McM, I note you failed to respond to the content of my post, which is that to get right with God, one should repent and have a firm purpose of ammendment. Do you think that's optional for some sins? Which ones? Or do you not think that? Don't worry, I don't expect a straight answer. It's not what wolf types do. Matthew 5:37"

"I should be clear also that it pains me to say it, because overall I think he's [Pope Francis] good for the Church - but the pope is doing the same thing on this issue. These problems stem from an inability to be open, transparent, and honest. Authentic life-giving dialogue is impossible when one partner can't (won't) dialogue with openness. That's why he resorted to a footnote... Effective dialogue partners don't deal in footnotes, they make their goals clear so that they can be discussed, not "snuck in."

You are right that I did not answer your question of whether I think it is "optional for some sins" to "have a firm purpose of amendment." 

I believe that when I confess my sin I need a firm purpose of amendment. 

But I know the Gospel teaches that God forgives sin 70x7 times, so God's forgiveness does not depend on the sinner's ability to go and sin no more. 

Moreover, you asked me question that in a string of examples and I genuinely don't know whether Confessors are instructed in Seminary formation that they should, to use one of your examples, deny absolution to someone who confesses holding a job that requires assisting in state executions through the Death penalty. 

If I had to hazard a guess, I would think Confessors are told they are not entitled to withhold absolution, but I genuinely don't know.

As for your comments about Pope Francis, I admit I am genuinely stunned that you seem to think Pope Francis's deeply nuanced positions in Amoris Laetitia make authentic life-giving dialogue impossible because he fails to be "open, transparent, and honest."  You see Pope Francis as "devious" because he "resorted to a footnote." 

So I can only conclude that you and I are reading Amoris Laetitia so differently.  I see the huge majority of bishops in Synod and Pope Francis trying to address a multitude of pastoral concerns about "irregular marriage situations" in the light of the Gospel and of the Church and rejecting any one-dimensional response of a single rule that applies to all situations regardless.  To me, that indicates dialogue, not the absence thereof.  And I certainly don't think Pope Francis is being deceitful about some real goal he has to hide in a footnote. 

 

 

[dominicansoul]

Does the pope even have to respond to this?  Just wondering how these things work...

[KnightofChrist]

51 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

Does the pope even have to respond to this?  Just wondering how these things work...

He does not have to respond directly to this, no. However, as Holy Father his duty is protect the Faith. He should clear up the confusion, both sides cannot be both right. Either unrepentant adulterers who continue to commit the act can or cannot receive Communion.

[McM RSCJ]

Knight of Christ,

"Either unrepentant adulterers who continue to commit the act can or cannot receive communion."

Surely, after prayerful and thorough reading of Amoris Laetitia, you know your quotation above reduces a complex pastoral, evangelical, and theological text to a false binary.

Come on!  There is NO text in Amoris Laetitia that concludes or insists "unrepentant adulterers who continue to commit the act can receive communion." 

What we find there is a thoughtful exposition that the situations of persons are multiple and complex, that God and grace can be at work in some "irregular" unions in ways the couple and their pastor can discern, and that for some such couples, rarely and only after discernment that weighs many searching questions and implications and sets stringent limitations, there may be a discerned path to full integration into the Church including reception of Eucharist.

For some Catholics (and, as best as I can gather from the research, a small minority) I gather that very thought is anathema.  But other Catholics celebrate this same teaching as deeply faithful to the Gospel, "good news"that affirms of God's work in our Church and in our lives.

So do you really think there is "confusion"?  (Or, the other usual charge, "scandal" from those who oppose Amoris Laetitia?  Or would it be more accurate to say you think there is disagreement?

For me, the more I re-read Amoris and the more I read about the criticisms, the more I think the concern is disagreement, not confusion.  I think there must be some Catholics who believe there can never be any path to full integration for those in a marriage that has prior divorce as some element.   And, to be candid, that claim is scandalous to many Catholics as it contradicts their understanding of the love of God revealed in Jesus.  Fidelity to the Church teachings must be grounded in Fidelity to the Church's mission of revelation of God's love and mercy and desire that each of us find our way to God.   You talk about the mission of the Pope "to protect the Faith."  I believe he is giving his last full measure of prayerful devotion and service in that duty. 

And if that is the key disagreement, what prompts it?  Francis suggests that what prompts it is a view (he considers against Catholic moral teaching from the time of Aquinas) that a strict moral rule applies in every case, regardless, and a priori to any particular person's situation and whether that person seeks God's mercy with a sincere heart.  Francis calls blanket adherence to the imposition of these  "stones" that some who claim to speak for the Church hurl at others.  And Francis rejects what he considers the periodically reappearing temptation of Church leaders--mistakenly and in contravention of the Gospel and the desires of the Heart of Jesus and Heart of God to "casting off" rather than reinstating [Amoris, 206]. 

Knight of Christ, I don't know who you are or what service/ministry you contribute to the Church.  But I know from pastors in the US and in other countries, that this path of reintegration has been in place, quietly, discreetly, for decades--just as I imagine that some pastors in this country and in other places have "imposed the rule regardless."  As a celibate Religious, I have not needed to be on the receiving end of pastoral care regarding marriage, but I have certainly heard from deeply faithful persons who have been harmed and judged regardless of their situations and their circumstances, but also have heard from those who found grace and acceptance from their pastors when they approached, humbly, the altar of God with their histories in their open hands..

As a Catholic, I think one troubling implication of this focus by critics on an aspect of Amoris Laetitia in Chapter 8, by those who claim they know the orthodox requirement and are thereby entitled to the authority to call out the Pope and the Synod for errors, distracts from our Church-wide call as Catholics to read and pray over the entire text and listen to the Spirit of God challenging us.  It certainly challenges me on understanding what genuine Catholic moral and pastoral teaching requires and rejects. 

 

 

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, McM RSCJ said:

Knight of Christ,

"Either unrepentant adulterers who continue to commit the act can or cannot receive communion."

Surely, after prayerful and thorough reading of Amoris Laetitia, you know your quotation above reduces a complex pastoral, evangelical, and theological text to a false binary.

Come on!  There is NO text in Amoris Laetitia that concludes or insists "unrepentant adulterers who continue to commit the act can receive communion." 

I was referring to the way in which various cardinals, bishops, priests and bishop conferences have interpreted AL. Some are orthodox interpretations, some are heterodox interpretations.

Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian according to Pope Francis, as well as other cardinals, bishops, priests for example state "yes" the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship can receive absolution and communion without a change of life (ie unrepentant adulterers who continue to commit the act of adultery). But others in the Church say "no" the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship cannot receive absolution and communion without a change of life.

Yes this really is confusion on a global scale, yes it really exist, yes it's really a big problem. No, just reading the document isn't going to clear things up. It's going to take the Pope himself to clear up the confusion. It will take him to say which side is right about how to interpret AL. And in an official manner, not some sideways private letter made public, or kinda official but not official manner.

Again, Can the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship receive absolution and communion without a change of life? Yes or no, then explain your answer. It seems to be "yes" but I just want to make sure. Lastly, please forgive me for not responding to most of your post. But since I feel you have purposefully avoided answering a simple question asked repeatedly of you I feel I should wait until you answer that question before continuing in dialogue.

Dominus Vobiscum

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by KnightofChrist