Wednesday, January 03, 2018

Beyond Amoris Laetitia

There are some diocese in the UK where even a liberal reading of  the Pope's letter to the Argentinian bishops on Amoris Laetitia's opening up of the reception of Holy Communion would be regarded as oppressively conservative.
In one UK diocese if an annulment procedure fails the couple or the Catholic party are sent to see a priest who has been given the 'faculty' not only to 'accompany' them but with a meeting or two, then to admit them to the reception of Holy Communion. This has been going on in  one instance I know of for thirty years. 

Does this happen elsewhere?

14 comments:

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think it is difficult to generalise. There was certainly a time when people who were personally convinced that their first marriage was invalid were told as a matter of the internal forum that it was okay to receive Holy Communion. However this idea was firmly rejected by JPII in Familiaris Consortio in 1981. It seems to me that when the internal forum was considered okay what was overlooked was that the divorced and remarried couple were not validly married in the eyes of the Church as they had only had a civil marriage which does not count for a Catholic as marriage. They were therefore living in sin regardless of the previous marriage.

Dominie Mary Stemp said...

It has been going on openly in my deanery - A&B

Victor S E Moubarak said...

What are you saying exactly?

If I am Catholic and divorced, with no annulment, re-married NOT in a Catholic Church, I can still take Communion?

Thank you.

God bless.

JARay said...

The implications of what you are saying Father, are that the Catholic Church in England is indistinguishable from the Anglican church. This is terrible! And to think that England was once the "Dowry of Mary'

Fr Joseph Taylor said...

Never"take"Holy Communion. Receive Holy Communion is the correct formula9
Father Morgan

Sixupman said...

JARay: Correct! Unfortunately it is the situation in many E&W parishes, also reflected in attendance levels at Mass. In my own diocese the new incumbent has adopted a system deployed in parts of the USA of lay managed and controlled parishes. Morland CofE parishioners vote for any new incumbent taking up a vacancy, will that also become the norm in my diocese - emulating the Low, Middle, High and Anglo-Catholic benefices of the CofE?

FSL said...

It is untrue that a courtroom marriage is automatically invalid in Catholic Canon law. Catholic form is only imposed upon Catholics, who even then under some circumstances may marry each other without a priest if one is not available. Only a lack of genuine desire to marry or positive will to destroy the "marriage" in terms of its essential properties of unity, indissolubility or openness to life, are enough to prevent the union being both valid and Sacramental between baptized persons according to law (cf. Canons 1056, 1060, 1099 and 1102.2 of the current code of Canon law (1983)) barring incest, lack of consummation or literal mistaken identity.

Paul Hellyer said...

You should have added. No you can't receive Holy Communion because you are in an adulterous relationship. Come on Fr, don't be bashful.

Gerard Larkin Haverstock Esq said...

How can they turn there back on the truth that has been come from Our Lord.Just because the Pontiff take a letter written by Bishops from South American, And says that we should believe them to be right.

Nicolas Bellord said...

There is a particularly interesting article by Sandro Magister regarding Pope Francis's career in Argentina. It is mostly based upon material written by his admirers such as Austen Ivereigh. Sandro Magister concludes:

"But today we know about the preceding conflict almost exclusively from his point of view, mediated by his biographer friends.

The point of view of the others, starting with the judgment of his general from a quarter of a century ago, is still to a large extent unknown to us."

It can be found at:

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/01/05/the-bergoglio-mystery-why-the-general-of-the-jesuits-didnt-want-him-made-bishop/

It made me think that if these are his friends does he need enemies?





Nicolas Bellord said...

FSL: I was speaking about Catholics who have contracted a marriage valid in the eyes of the Church, not having been annulled, then entering into a civil 'marriage', outside the Church to a different partner. Can you cite Canon Law which says such a second 'marriage' can ever be valid in the eyes of the Church and that the new arrangement is not adultery?

Jfrrlll said...

In all the noise arising out of Amoris Laetitia I have not been aware of any emphasis on the sublime purpose of the Holy Eucharist. The recipient needs to be sure that he does not receive the Sacrament unworthily ( hence uselessly).It is food for the journey to the salvation prepared for us by Jesus. We do not need "permission" to receive. We need to know that we are truly receiving the body and blood of our saviour; which cannot be the case if we are in a state of mortal sin. Permission to receive is neither here nor there if we are in a state of mortal sin.

Jfrrlll said...

In all the noise arising out of Amoris Laetitia I have not been aware of any emphasis on the sublime purpose of the Holy Eucharist. The recipient needs to be sure that he does not receive the Sacrament unworthily ( hence uselessly).It is food for the journey to the salvation prepared for us by Jesus. We do not need "permission" to receive. We need to know that we are truly receiving the body and blood of our saviour; which cannot be the case if we are in a state of mortal sin. Permission to receive is neither here nor there if we are in a state of mortal sin.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Jfrrlll:

There are two aspects to this:

1. There is the teaching of the Church that those in mortal sin should not seek to receive Holy Communion.

2. There is then Canon Law which states:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It seems that Amoris Laetitia is suggesting that it is possible for a priest to give permission to someone in mortal sin to receive communion. This would contradict Canon 915 because they would be obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.

Thus there are two arms to this. A person who is conscious of being in mortal sin should not seek to receive communion. Conscience can enter into the question of whether they are in mortal sin. However under Canon Law the priest should not administer communion if they are manifestly in grave sin and persevering in it. Conscience does not enter into that. The person may feel that they are not in grave sin when in fact they are but even so the priest must not administer communion. It seems to me that the crucial mistake in the liberal position is to say that conscience which is relevant in the first instance can also be relevant in the second when it clearly cannot.