https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/09/12/pope-okays-argentine-doc-communion-divorced-remarried/ ROME- Ever since Pope Francis released a sweeping document on the family this March, there’s been ongoing discussion regarding what the conclusion actually is for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who, according to previous Church teaching, were barred from receiving Communion. We may now have a new clue, one that stems from the pontiff’s former archdiocese in Argentina. The bishops of the Buenos Aires region have drafted a set of guidelines meant to help local priests put Francis’s Amoris Laetitia into pastoral practice, particularly chapter eight, which makes reference to “discernment regarding the possible access to the sacraments of some of those who are divorced and in a new union.” The guidelines say that some civilly remarried couples who can’t adhere to the Church’s teaching of “living like brothers and sisters,” who have complex circumstances, and who can’t obtain a declaration of nullity for their first marriage, might undertake a “journey of discernment,” and arrive at the recognition that in their particular case, there are limitations that “diminish responsibility and culpability.” For these exceptional cases, the bishops wrote, “Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” Yet, they warn, “it’s necessary to avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments, or as though any situation might justify it.” The guidelines, dated Sept. 5, reached Francis, who answered on the same day, writing: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.” In his letter addressed to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of the diocese of San Miguel, and delegate of the Buenos Aires pastoral region, Francis writes that “pastoral charity” moves the clergy to go out and encounter “those who are at a distance, and once found, to start down the road of welcome, accompaniment, discernment, and integration” into the Church’s community. This, the pontiff acknowledged, is “tiresome,” as it entails a personal pastoral approach that isn’t satisfied with “programmatic, organizational, or legal interventions, however necessary they may be.” As he did recently in a private meeting with Polish Jesuits, Francis highlighted the urgency he sees in teaching seminarians and priests on discernment. However, now it seems the document sent to the pope was a draft, not meant for publication, and much less immediate application. Let’s rewind. Amoris Laetitia is a papal document, technically an apostolic exhortation, written by Francis as the result of two Synods of Bishops on the family which took place in Oct. 2014 and 2015. As the pope told the bishops of Buenos Aires in his letter, “Amoris Laetitia was the fruit of the labor and prayer of the whole Church with the mediation of two synods and of the pope.” Theologians, bishops, experts in canon law and even the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano waded into the interpretation of chapter eight. Some have said Amoris Laetitia opens the doors to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion, and that it’s in line with the Church’s teaching of a merciful God. Others said that it does open the door, but is against Church teaching since the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman is indissoluble, meaning “until death do us part.” Some have even questioned the validity of the document, which is the reason why Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, perceived as one of the forces behind the document, said in an interview with the Jesuit-run journal Civilta Cattolica, that the document is part of the magisterium. Since the document came out, Francis has mostly kept away from the discussion until last week, when he answered a letter from the bishops from the ecclesiastical province of Buenos Aires in his native Argentina. With the country’s uneven demographic distribution, this region represents close to 40 percent of the total population. The bishops have been working on what so far is a 10-point guideline, referring exclusively to chapter eight. Many local priests had asked about what was the concrete pastoral response they were supposed to give, and the letter, which was published by a Spanish Catholic news site that later took it down, is a response to those concerns. The site, InfoCatolica, took the guidelines and the accompanying message of approval from Francis down, explaining that after releasing both they found out the recommendations were incomplete and not ready for publication. On Sept. 8, several members of the clergy of Buenos Aires were invited to discuss them, including Cardinal Mario Poli, handpicked by the pope to be his successor in his former diocese. Yet on Sunday night, the Italian blog IlSismografo, often considered a semi-official Vatican news site, published both documents in full, in Spanish. And on Monday L’Osservatore Romano published parts of both in Italian. In the guidelines, the bishops say that “it’s not convenient to speak of ‘permission’ to receive the sacraments,” but about a personal and pastoral process of discernment. The fact that the personal path has to be done with the accompaniment of a priest means that a divorced and remarried person alone can’t decide his or her situation fits the exception. The journey of pastoral accompaniment doesn’t necessarily end in the sacraments, “but can be oriented to other ways of being better integrated into the life of the Church: a greater presence in the community, participation in groups of prayer or reflection, commitment to various ecclesial services.” They also write that, if such exception is possible, it’d be convenient for the person to receive the sacraments in a reserved way, particularly when situations of conflict, i.e., confusing the congregation, are foreseen. “But at the same time one must not cease to accompany the community, so that it might grow in a spirit of understanding and welcoming, without creating confusion regarding the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage,” the bishops write. The bishops’ directive, called Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia, is signed solely by “the bishops of the region.” Several sources have told Crux that this two-page document has so far been as divisive as the papal document. For this reason, revisions to the guidelines is expected, although how far-reaching they will be is still unknown. But the fact remains that Francis himself gave the present version his all-clear.
Prophecy of Blessed Catherine Emmerich on the Two Popes "It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted." ...
It doesn't get any clearer than this. If only Pope Francis could teach with such orthodox clarity. Cardinal Arinze say's, "the act of mercy is to help them to truth" when speaking on those who are cohabiting. Gota love him! God surely does
I absolutely think that Africa will stay the faith in this craziness. We have so many wonderful priests from Africa in Arizona and I am sure throughout the US. We are mission territory here, I was told, and they are re-teaching the faith that US Catholics have lost. The ones I have come in contact with through confession or the parishes I attend have strong family roots and are orthodox in their views. Very comforting and reassuring. God Bless Cardinal Arinze for speaking truth.
Yes, I think Africa is solid Bless 'em. However I have become concerned lately about another African Cardinal who has often been spoken off as a future Pope and appears to be steaming off into outer orbit himself. Sow e should not assume that just because they come from Africa all's well. The devil sows were he will. I am thinking of Cardinal Peter Turkson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turkson
It's no accident the Cardinal is being rocketed through the ranks in the Vatican as he is singing from the same hymn book as the modernists in control there. A good tip for next Pope. Another Pope Francis waiting in the wings. He has all the right credentials to continue the dismantling of the Church. http://www.angelusnews.com/articles/vatican-official-hopes-trump-will-rethink-some-decisions https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1437
BY the way the new Papal envoy served for many years in Rwanda in Africa. Is very much aware of an supportive of the Church approved Marian apparitions there and has recently more nor less given the thumbs up to Medugorje. A good man. How he got the job there I can't understand. I thought the modernists in charge would have wanted to bury a guy like this. But there you are. http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/2017/04/good-news-medjugorje-2/
I am sort of praying that the next Pope will be a nobody, perhaps an unknown yet holy parish priest somewhere. During the Middle Ages, wasn't there a Pope elected who wasn't even a priest at the time? They gave him Holy Orders on the spot. With God, anything is possible.
God will break the devil's back, in His own way, in His own time. In the mean time He has taken up residence in St Peter's.
Hope the attached link will lift everyones spirits for a minute, and hope God understands how much we need to chill out sometimes with all these serious discussions.
Mon Apr 10, 2017 - 12:06 pm EST Vatican’s doctrinal chief: Church hasn’t changed teaching against contraception, divorce, homosexuality April 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Catholic Church under Pope Francis has not changed her teaching on the immorality of cohabitation, adultery, divorce, or homosexuality, and she has certainly not opened the door for civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion, said Cardinal Gerhard Muller in a new book-length interview published April 1. Muller, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in the 240-page book, titled The Cardinal Muller Report, that Catholics must not fear “confessing our faith." The book was dedicated to Pope Francis. In the interview, conducted about a year ago but only made available in English this month, the Cardinal said that it would be a “false concept of God” as well as a “false interpretation of mercy” to allow civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics living in adultery to receive Communion. In “immoral relationships” such as cohabitation and divorce-and-remarriage, he said, “the seeds of the Word [of God] do not abide in [these] sinful situations.” In these situations, he added, “despite the fact that it might seem otherwise, there can be no authentic dynamic of love but, rather, only a serious obstacle to the ability to grow in humanity.” Muller said that the 2015 Synod on the Family insisted that “given the intimate nature of the sacraments and the character of the indissolubility of marriage as divine law, it is not possible to admit to the Eucharist divorced people who have remarried civilly.” Any pastoral accompaniment for those in irregular situations, he said, must “always be rendered according to conscience and the teaching of the Church.” “Saint John Paul II warned that being pastoral does not mean a compromise between the doctrine of the Church and the complex reality of daily life but, rather, leading individuals to Christ,” he added. The Cardinal said that Pope Francis’ much used statement that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak,” is often mistakenly interpreted. He maintained that it does not mean that “anyone can come to receive the Eucharist even though he is not in grace and does not have the required state of mind, just because it is nourishment for the weak." He noted that access to the Eucharist comes with necessary preconditions. “Certainly access to Eucharistic Communion presupposes a life of grace, presupposes communion in the Body of the Church, and also presupposes a life ordered in conformity with the Body of the Church so as to be able to say the ‘Amen’ to which you referred before. Saint Paul insists that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord,” he said. To go to Communion without being in the required state of grace and with the assumption that God “grants me privately the forgiveness of my sins” is a “false concept of God; this is tempting him,” he added. Muller said that Pope Francis’ famous statement “Who am I to judge,” often repeated by those who are hoping to see a “change of direction” in the Church on homosexuality, does not mean the Church has suddenly become “less dogmatic” on the issue. “The concept of the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts, because they do not proceed from a genuine emotional and sexual complementarity, stems from Holy Scripture,” he said. And yes, he said, the Church “with her Magisterium, has the power to judge the morality of specific situations,” such as sexual acts. “This is an undisputed truth: God is the only judge who will judge us at the end times, and the pope and bishops have the obligation to present the revealed criteria for this Last Judgment which our moral conscience already anticipates. The Church has always said ‘this is true, this is false,’ and no one can live by his own subjectivist interpretation of God’s commandments,” he added. The Cardinal warned against “new anti-family ideologies” that have arisen that “attempt to redefine what is human, based, not on the truth, but on individual feeling and social utility.” He specifically mentioned the danger of “gender ideology.” This ideology, he said, “does not respect the reality of things and that ultimately denies the Creator and man’s condition of having been created.” It “affirms that man’s identity does not depend on nature, with a body that is limited to a masculine or feminine sexuality” and “makes use of medical advances to use the body as an area of experimentation, viewing a change in sex as a simply biological operation,” he said. Muller said that lurking behind gender ideology is the manmade “idol” of “our own liberty, of our own wish, proposing to be, ourselves, those who determine what is good and bad.” “Was this not the substance of the first temptation of Adam and Eve? Is it possible to build a society without respecting the fundamental difference between a man and a woman?” he added. The Cardinal concluded his interview by proposing how the Church can help modern man find “peace and reconciliation with himself.” “There is only one way open to us: compunction or repentance for the evil committed. The Cross of Christ is the only path. There is no other path for evangelization today,” he said.
I agree it is great Cardinal Muller has said all of this, but I think it is truly sad that we get so excited because one Cardinal simply stated Church teaching. How far have we fallen?
Fascinating exchanges over the meaning of ‘Amoris laetitia’ – Is some clarity emerging? Posted on 14 April 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf If you haven’t been following this, you might tune in. Pope Francis’ document Amoris laetitia has sparked sharp divisions and debates. The sides have drawn up pretty much into two camps… well… three if you count the uninformed, which is pretty large. For the 1st anniversary of Amoris, Washington DC’s Archbishop Card. Wuerl said: He notes that the pastoral guidance of Amoris Laetitia, found in chapter 8, has been controversial, but explains why there is no cause for alarm: “The hermeneutic required for a fruitful appropriation of the document’s teaching on this point is based on the understanding that none of the teaching of the Church has been changed: This includes the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, the directives of the Code of Canon Law, and also the role of individual conscience in the determination of personal culpability….. “The exhortation does not create some sort of internal forum process in which a marriage can be annulled, or in which the objective moral order can be changed…. Instead, the exhortation places greater emphasis on the role of the individual conscience in appropriating those moral norms in the person’s actual circumstances.” Fr Raymond de Souza then made the sound point at the ever iffy Crux that the bishops of Malta, in their guidelines for applying Chapter 8 issued a while back (aka “The Maltese Fiasco”), the bishops of Germany and curial Cardinal Coccopalmerio think that something has changed. Whereas Card. Wuerl tries to uphold John Paul II’s teaching in Familiaris consortio, the others say Amoris revises it. So, in simple terms within this complicated debate, there are a couple camps. One camp holds that doctrine and discipline haven’t changed, and the other holds that it has. De Souza rightly concludes that they can’t both be right. Then, again at iffy Crux – and this is another example of why Crux is iffy – the former editor of the ultra-liberal Pill (aka The Tablet), Austen Ivereigh, and now an editor for Crux – wrote a condescending rebuttal of Fr. de Souza stating: The hermeneutic of interpretation of Pope Francis’s document on the joy of love, says Wuerl, is that the Church’s teaching on marriage has not changed. Questioning that idea, de Souza responds that Wuerl can only be right if the German and Maltese bishops are wrong. This is a classic maneuver of those whom the cardinal accurately describes as “challenging the integrity” of Amoris. De Souza says he hopes Wuerl is right, that “nothing has changed”; but if it hasn’t, then how can the Maltese bishops say “something has changed?” But Wuerl never says nothing has changed. He says church teaching and laws on marriage haven’t changed. Something has changed, not in church law or doctrine, but in moral theology and the pastoral application of sacramental discipline. This shouldn’t be necessary to say, but for the record, Amoris Laetitia throughout its nine chapters upholds, promotes and passionately seeks to restore lifelong, faithful, stable, indissoluble unions. In response to Ivereigh’s patronizing response to de Souza comes the deft canonist Ed Peters. Peters published simultaneously at the Catholic World Report and his own blog In The Light Of The Law a post which reveals the fatal flaw in Ivereigh’s snooty piece. Peters writes (with my emphases and comments): Sever ‘canon law’ from ‘pastoral pratice’ and lots of things make sense I am tempted to address at length Austen Ivereigh’s commentary onFr. Raymond de Souza’s observations on Cdl. Wuerl’s statementon Francis’ document Amoris laetitia, but at a certain point the law of diminishing returns sets leaving such an exercise tedious. So let me just say: Ivereigh is free to argue that Amoris does not undermine Church teaching on sin, but he needs to respond to those who disagree with his claim with something more than paternalistic tsk-tsk’ing [Peters also noted Ivereigh’s condescension] and, before anything else, he needs to face the simple fact that Wuerl can’t be right (as I think he is, if narrowly read) and the bishops of Malta also be right (as I think they certainly are not)—which is de Souza’s main point. The reason Ivereigh misses de Souza’s point is, I suspect, that, deep down, Ivereigh thinks that “canon law” and ‘approved pastoral practice’ are two fundamentally different things. [This error has infected a great many people today, churchmen, newsies, etc. It is dangerous.] Thus Ivereigh could logically hold that canon law (including the barring of divorced-and-remarried Catholics from holy Communion) has remained the same, while at the same time holding that pastors may admit such persons to holy Communion under conditions other than those already recognized by the Church (namely, separation of abodes, or a commitment to live as brother-sister where the irregular marriage is not known). Ivereigh would be right, if canon law has little or nothing to do with what pastors should really do. continued...
At some point I hope that Ivereigh et al will sit down, look at the text of Canon 915 and the numerous ecclesial values behind it, and recognize, among other things, that degrees of personal culpability (which Ivereigh and others go on and on and on about, as if that were the central insight his adversaries lack) have nothing to do with the operation of the objectively oriented Canon 915, the main law that controls pastoral practice in this area—whereupon they will do one of two things: (1) accept that tradition and promote it, or (2) acknowledge that tradition and honestly call for changing it. [!] At which point all sides would be talking about the same, and the dispositive, issue. What I fear is that, instead, Ivereigh et al, ignoring the connection that must, and usually does, exist between law and practice, will simply keep on repeating that canon law has not changed but good pastoral practice has. Which is a huge waste of time. Peters got this exactly right. I am reminded of the exchange in Aristophanes The Birds between Meton and Pisthetaerus. Let’s be honest about what Amoris says and doesn’t say without verbose fan-dances which attempt to square the circle. The ongoing debate about Amoris Ch. 8 reveals a possible approach of Pope Francis, who, so far at least, has declined to offer any clarifications. He has not, for example, responded to the Five Dubia of the Four Cardinals. As Tracy Rowand points out in her terrific new book Catholic Theology (HERE), … If Pope Francis has sympathy for any particular approach to Catholic theology, it is that of ‘People’s Theology’. One of the most extensive articles on this subject is Juan Carlos Scannone’s ‘El papa Francisco y la teologia del pueblo’ published in the journal Razón y Fe. In this paper Scannone claims that not only is Pope Francis a practitioner of ‘People’s Theology’ but also that Francis extracted his favourite four principles – time is greater than space, unity prevails over conflict, reality is more important than ideas, and the whole is greater than the parts – from a letter of the nineteenth-century Argentinian dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793– 1877) sent to another Argentinian caudillo, Facundo Quiroga (1788– 1835), in 1834. These four principles, which are said to govern the decision-making processes of Pope Francis, have their own section in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium and references to one or other of them can be found scattered throughout his other papal documents. Pope Francis calls them principles for ‘building a people’. A common thread running through each of these principles is the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory. [NOTA BENE…] There is also a sense that conflict in itself is not a bad thing, that ‘unity will prevail’ somehow and that time will remove at least some of the protagonists in any conflict. The underlying metaphysics is quite strongly Hegelian, and the approach to praxis itself resembles what Lamb classified as ‘cultural-historical’ activity and is associated primarily with Luther and Kant rather than Marx. (Kindle Locations 4226-4252) The ongoing conflicts between the camps which have sharply divided over Amoris laetitia may reveal a kind of “Hegelian” approach to doing theology favored by the Holy Father: let the positions clash and, over time, things will settle down and there will have emerged a new approach, changes in doctrine, revised laws, etc. In the meantime, Ed Peters got it right and Ivereigh got it wrong. De Souza is right to point out that both Card. Wuerl (in what De Souza cites) and the bishops of German and Malta, etc., can’t both be right about Amoris. Lastly, I renewed my serious questions about why the Knights of Columbus would bankroll Crux if this is what Crux is determined to produce. This is the second time that Crux – with the Knights’ money – has published something troubling by Ivereigh, whom Crux employees an editor. Perhaps it is time for Knights to think about shedding their KC insurance.
Cristina Odone, a Catholic and journalist, reports that, following the publication of AL, she approached one of two priests that she knows as friends about her own situation (divorced and 'remarried') and was told that Church teaching had not changed and that she could not receive Communion. She approached her other priest/friend who told her that, although the teaching was unchanged, AL clearly taught that this teaching should be interpreted in the light of individual circumstances and that she could discuss the matter with a priest or that she might merely rely on the dictates of her conscience in the matter. She wanted guidance and is more confused than originally and, to her credit, is reluctant to rely on a conscience that she admits might be mis-informed. What a mess!
