….What might come as a surprise to some observers is the other fight over “Eucharistic coherence” waiting for the bishops during Thursday’s meeting.
The bishops will be asked to vote upon “Called to the Joy of Love,” a document called a “pastoral framework,” on marriage and family ministry. The text is essentially a guidebook for lay and clerical pastoral ministers to families and married couples, which says it is inspired and guided by Amoris laetitia, a 2016 text from Pope Francis on marriage and family life.
Amoris laetitia sparked years of disagreement and conflict among bishops and theologians in the Church, especially over a footnote, footnote 351, which seemed to suggest that couples in “irregular marriage” — that is, civilly married couples maintaining a sexual relationship, in which at least one party had been previously married and not received an ecclesiastical annulment — might be able to receive the Eucharist, in at least limited circumstances….
The Amoris controversy came roaring back Wednesday afternoon, when Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich asked Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who chairs the committee which drafted the “pastoral framework,” why the text seemed not to have drawn from the pope’s ideas to better “integrate” couples in irregular marriages into the life of the Church. Those ideas are expressed most especially in Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia.
It seemed obvious — given that Cupich has spoken frequently and favorably of the footnote — that Cupich had in mind footnote 351.
Cordileone countered that his committee’s text had drawn from the principles of Chapter Eight, but the discussion was quickly drawn to a close, as time for the meeting expired.
In a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Arlington’s Bishop Michael Burbidge, who chairs the USCCB’s communications committee, said that “Archbishop Cordileone answered the question quite clearly” by saying that themes important to the pope were included in the USCCB’s document.
Burbidge added that Cordileone had “answered Cardinal Cupich’s question by reassuring him, ‘Yes, absolutely, the Holy Father’s main theme is that we don’t abandon anyone, we find a way as Church to heal and accompany them, that’s very much part of the document.’”
“And I think that was part of the response, and concern, I think, was alleviated,” he said.
It seems unlikely that Cupich’s concern was actually alleviated, or that the cardinal was reassured. Cupich was not looking for main themes. He was looking for specifics, and by his reading of the text, they weren’t there. And the cardinal seemed intent on doing what he could about that.
Ahead of Thursday’s debate on the document, bishops are permitted to submit proposals for amendments; Cupich is reported to have submitted several proposals, some of which aim at a more concrete and direct reference to the aspects of Amoris laetitia he thinks have been omitted from the bishops’ document.
During scheduled debate on Thursday, and with those proposed amendments in hand, Cupich is likely to again press for clarity on why the U.S. bishops’ document does not directly take up footnote 351 in its treatment of Amoris laetitia. At least a few other bishops will probably join him….
The above comes from analysis after the June 16 bishops’ meeting by J.D. Flynn of The Pillar.
Mr. Jim Holman: Your IT guy needs to do some more work! The “Recent comments” section on the sidebar disappears if you scroll down enough to see them. Thanks!
Appreciate heads up- just notified IT.
Amoris Laetitia is magisterium. Footnote 351 is magisterium. Deal with it. Those living in sin are no longer prohibited from receiving communion. Magisterium.
You are flat out lying. Some people might be kind and say you are uninformed, but I’ll call you out as a liar, intentionally misleading people.
Wby even respond to anyone who identifies as anonymous and will not even leave his/her name? Show a little transparency with real identification. This is the only response I’ll give to “handles” rather than real names of real people.
I’m quite leary of giving my real name anymore. The cancel culture is alive and well. Comments that actually follow the magesterium are now fair game for reports to employers.
A few years ago, someone posted here with his real first name and his area of residence. Another person who commented here stalked him on the internet and posted his full name and information about him on this website.
When people use an identifying name, they risk being bullied.
No one is suggesting using your real name. Just pick a moniker so people know which “Anonymous” they are responding to.
I have been through phases, too. You learn social media by doing social media. Your social skills improve. I think people who post on social media usually have something in them that wants attention or admiration. So it can be devastating when you get negative attention or disagreement or even insults.
People here say a lot of hurtful things. We all can always do better. I have learned, sometimes, to just let things go. I make an effort to “only saying the things men need to hear” but at some point, the swell head takes over and I post something that not the best example of Christianity for which I apologize.
And to those who were mean to me when I was learning, I forgive and to those who I hurt while I was learning, I apologize.
No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear.
And do not grieve the holy Spirit of God, with which you were sealed for the day of redemption.
All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice.
[And] be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.
Anonymous, et al: Again, you do not need to use your real names. Pick one. It’s becoming like the tower of Babel here when we don’t know who is responding – “I’m not this Anonymous, I’m another Anonymous”. I think the web manager should require User Names.
You do not understand footnote 351 nor magisterium.
Those living in sin are prohibited from presenting themselves for communion.
Catholics who have divorced and remarried are not to present themselves for communion. They should have obtained an annulment but if they did not, they cannot receive communion.
There are some cases where divorced and remarried without annulment might be able to receive communion. But it is the exception to the rule. Should be very rare and yes, it has existed since before Vatican II.
A couple cannot decide for themselves that their case is an exception. They need to talk to a priest and he needs to tell them that he believes they can receive the sacraments of reconciliation and communion without guilt. They should receive outside of Mass so as not to scandalized the faithful.
The only exception according to St. John Paul II’s writings was if they lived together for the sake of any children, and they did not engage in marital relations. It has to be done in such a way as not to contribute to scandal among the faithful, though.
Those living in sin cannot present themselves for Holy Communion, period. Amoris is merely a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, the personal reflection of Pope Francis and it is not magisterial. It is purposely confusing Catholic teaching with the ideologies of Church leftists, a weaponized ambiguity that is Not Church law.
To be consistent you must affirm that Pope Benedict’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis is not magisterial. Whoops… there goes a lot of teaching you probably like about the Eucharist! Cafeteria Catholicism is not allowed. Not for the left, not for the right. Amoris Laetitia is magisterium.
It isn’t magisterial! And while Benedict’s writings provide insight and clarity, unlike Francis who confuses, Sacramentum Caritatis just puts meat on the bones, it doesn’t attempt to break new ground.
No, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia,” has nothing at all to do with the holy Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Better ask your priest to explain it to you. The famous “footnote 351” is not what the Church teaches. Go have a good talk with your priest.
No, it is not. The Pope has no authority to change church teaching. It is merely a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, and one which has been questioned repeatedly for its content without any response from Pope Francis.
the dividing line is not defined by political terms,but by biblical and doctrinal verities preserved by the apostles. the bishops have come to a fork in the road between orthodoxy and heresy. the unity is bound by the witness of tradition in the Creed, ‘0ne,holy,catholic and apostolic’.
Cupich’s goal is to allow those active homosexuals to licitly receive Holy Communion thus normalizing gay sexual activity. He will try to get the camel’s nose under the tent by using the divorced and remarried as fodder in his real quest which is to further the rainbow agenda.
No one in a state of mortal sin should receive Holy Communion, as The Church has always taught. Cupich is a bad shepherd, leading his flock to perdition, and all because he is a homosexualist.
Let’s provide the relevant texts so we all know what we’re talking about:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. 351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 , 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).”
In an objective situation of sin a person can be living in God’s grace while receiving the Church’s help, including the sacraments.
Cupich is right.
No Cupich is wrong and so are you, Receiving the Eucharist is not a right
By weaponizing the Eucharist you misunderstand what the Pope is trying to do and teach about the Church being help for all.
Cdl. Cupich has never been a true Catholic. When the bishop of a Diocese teaches you about your religion, and admonishes you to respect God and not sin, and to never disrespect God and make sacrilegious Communions– you must respect him! He is not “threatening” you, or using a Sacrament as a “weapon.” Respect for God is the whole problem! Cdl. Cupich is not suited to the role he is in, and should never have become a Catholic priest.
Is that you, Bishop McElroy?
Then let the Eucharist be a weapon against liberals who constantly want to change the teachings of the Church for their own evil purpose.
The Sacred Body, blood, Soul and Divinity really present in the Blessed Sacrament is the most effective spiritual weapon against evil, against sin, against human weakness, against temptation.
well If he and choice and Francis is wrong then so is Jesus Christ.
The beatitudes are just a wonderful little lakeside chat. They are part and parcel of the Gospel itself.
Such hyperbolic language from Francis. If the confessional is a torture chamber, then the penitent must have a lot of serious sin to confess, which he must do before approaching the communion rail. Confession is the real nourishment for the weak.
Would that apply to slave owners, businesspersons exploiting workers and exposing them to hazardous situations, human traffickers, avowed racists, child abusers and those engaging in gross, illegal pollution of the environment and others?
They too have “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors.”
If you believe they should receive Holy Communion, then, I understand your argument. At least it’s logical. But, that’s not what the Church teaches.
If not, why do you apply it only to sexual sins? Herod had “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors” and speaking the truth cost St. John the Baptist his life.
If anyone is “weaponizing” the Eucharist, it’s those who want to live contrary to the teachings of Christ and demand that they be able to receive the precious Body and Blood of our Lord. God’s grace, via the Church, is lovingly telling them the truth about their sin, so that they might repent, receive forgiveness, healing and life and return to all of the sacraments.
If you are aware of grave sin, which those things in your question are, you are not to present yourself for communion.
Your quote provides the clarity that we need. It’s clear that Francis has made a grave error with his footnote.
Reason: People who are not culpable for objectively sinful acts need to be aware of this sin by the Church. This needs to be done pastorally but NOT to the point of incompetence as Francis recommends in his non-Magisterial opinion.
Example: A serial murderer who is not culpable for these past sins is about to kill someone in the communion line. It is pastorally incompetent for a priest to make the killer aware of these sins AND then give him Holy Communion at the same moment that he pulls the trigger on his next victim.
The issue is broader than, but includes, public officials who promote abortion and persons having sex with someone while married to another person or anyone having sex outside of marriage (gay or straight). No one, none of us reading this included, should approach the Table of the Lord while in a state of mortal sin. No one is really denied Holy Communion. Yet, it should be deferred until we repent of our sins. That’s for the sake of our souls, the Church, the watching world and more. The Eucharist is a sacrifice involving the renewal of a covenant. Such should not be taken lightly. It’s not just a meal or a little spiritual medicinal. Christ our God took renewing the covenant with humanity seriously, to the Cross. We, too, should take it seriously.
Magisterial teaching cannot contradict Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the teachings of the ecumenical Councils and previous magisterial teaching.
An ambiguous footnote does not constitute magisterial teaching. The footnote is correct in at least one way. Those in “irregular unions” (“second marriages” not witnessed by the Church because a previous Catholic marriage was not determined to be null) should avail themselves of the sacraments, namely Confession and the graces of the sacraments of their baptisms and confirmations and, in some cases, the graces of matrimony, if their previous marriage was valid. If they believe their first marriage was not a valid sacrament, they should seek an annulment before entering into another relationship.
A footnote does not overrule the words of our Lord Jesus, “”Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)
I fully agree with Deacon Anderson. I’ll add this note. In my experience, 98% of petitioned decrees of nullity are granted (especially on the canonical ground of “lack of due discretion of judgment” regarding the vital elements of sacramental marriages [c. 1095, 1.]) and in many dioceses there is no fee (other than for psychiatric /psychological consultation necessary to prove certain grounds, and charged to the petitioner by the consultant). So why not give an “annulment” a shot? It’s a lot easier than wracking their own brains and consciences for moral certainty that the former marriage was null.
Is my opinion re annulments cavalier? It is.
Is it the true state of affairs? Unfortunately it is.
Go easy on anyone who labels the annulment process “Catholic divorce”. In the USA they may well be correct.
Deacon Craig Anderson, the divorced and remarried are not supposed to go to Confession. They are not supposed to be given absolution as long as they live in that sin.
Actually, they are supposed to go to Confession and stop continuing to live in a state of sin. It’s a bit complicated, but, there are circumstances when they can continue to live chastely under the same roof as a brother and sister would. Then, they may be welcomed back to the Eucharist. You’re correct in that they cannot continue to have sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married (or they should not be given absolution).
The Sacraments are holy. Catholics must respect the Church– no one is “entitled” to the Sacraments, nor to anything of the Church– not even the Pope! Catholics must be humble, prepare properly, with respect for Our Lord, and carefully and reverently receive Holy Communion– and all other Sacraments– with a humble and thankful heart. We must respect Our Lord. When we sin, we must immediately go to Confession, with a contrite and sorrowful heart.
I believe we are watching the farce of the USCCB become exposed. If a business was run as ineptly as the USCCB it would go bankrupt.
This is sadly true. Enforcement of Canon 915 is all they need. And to respect God and do their job. No bishop “needs permission” to do his job. By the time these bishops play “Mickey Mouse” games with “writing a document on Eucharistic Coherence” — Pres. Biden will be gone from the White House.
This is bigger than that.
Mary, undoer of knots, pray for us. St. Joseph, pray for us. Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us. All bishops and confessors, pray for us. All saints, pray for us. St. Michael, protect them.
Holy Spirit, enlighten them all.
God bless the Church. God bless and heal all Americans and all people.
Amoris Laetitia — a Papal exhortation –footnote 351 is heresy. No Catholic, willingly in a continuous state of adultery, may receive communion. No Pope can change this, as St. JPII confirmed in Familiaris Consortio (Nov. 22, 1981): “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.” (Para. 84)
Thank you for that quote. That is correct. That is the smart way to do it.
Most Catholics accept that.
The media has made more of that footnote than it should have because they need “news.”
Except that Familiaris Consortio is also an apostolic exhortation, so according to trads here who try to claim that Amoris Laetitia isn’t magisterial, Familiaris Consortio can’t be magisterial either.
Why such hate for trads? They’re Catholic, serving the same God as you, what’s your beef?
The trad schism lives on by refusing to accept the magisterium of Pope Francis.
“The Magisterium of Pope Francis”– doesn’t exist! And everyone in every age, has their own opinions– no such thing as “trad schism,” in today’s era. We are all Catholics! Did St. Francis of Assisi start a “traditional Catholic schism” in his day, with a big Catholic reform movement? His new religious order sought a return to the ancient, traditional, original Catholic Faith! How about St.Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross– were they “radically traditional,” causing a “big schism” in the 16th century, reforming the Carmelite religious order back to its ancient, traditional, original foundations? Is Abp. Cordileone “radically traditional,” in his time, causing a “big schism” in the USCCB, because of his desire for a reform back to original Catholic teaching and practice, with “Eucharistic Coherence?” And what is so wrong with a “cleansing of abuses and falsehoods,” and a “return to traditional religious origins,” in different eras of our Church’s long history??
Abp. Cordileone– who is younger than me!– loves and supports the old Latin Tridentine Mass in his Archdiocese. I have personally attended the old Latin Mass said by him, and have received Holy Conmunion from him, kneeling at the altar rail. Does that mean Abp. Cordileone is to be wrongfully labeled as some kind of “rad trad schismatic,” by some goofed-up disrespectful Catholic kid? No, of course not!
Get that one? The magesterium of Pope Francis. hahah what a give away.
That would be the magesterium of the Catholic Church, bub. And not the current occupant of chair of St Peter.
Be Christian in you corrections, please. Be kind. It costs nothing.
Some of the ? and ? buttons do not appear to be working!
That one worked for me.
Did anyone watch it?