Vatican City, Feb 14, 2017 / 05:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The head of the Vatican office charged with interpreting Church law has said that divorced-and-remarried persons who want to change their situation but cannot, may be admitted to Communion without living in continence.
“The Church could admit to Penance and to the Eucharist faithful who find themselves in an illegitimate union when two essential conditions occur: they want to change the situation, but they are unable to fulfill their desire,” Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, 78, wrote in his booklet Chapter Eight of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhoration Amoris laetitia, published last week.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio is president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. His booklet, published by the Vatican Publishing House and presented Feb. 14 at a Vatican press confence, offers his own interpretation of Amoris laetitia. He said it is aimed at “grasping the rich doctrinal and pastoral message” of Pope Francis’ 2016 apostolic exhortation.
Part of the reason for writing it, he said, is because the exhortation’s eighth chapter has “been judged with either negativity or with a certain reservation.”
In the text, Cardinal Coccopalmerio extensively quotes Amoris laetitia, saying Chapter 8 illustrates both the clear doctrine of the Church on marriage, as well as the conditions in which, due to “serious” repercussions, couples living in irregular unions might be able to receive Communion.
He reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, and stressed that the Church must in no way “renounce to proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its greatness.”
“Any form of relativism, or an excessive respect in the moment of proposing it, would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel and also a lack of love of the Church,” he said.
However, he noted that, as said in Amoris laetitia, there are many complex factors contributing to why marriages fail and irregular unions are so common, such as abandonment by a spouse, cultural stigmas, or other “mitigating factors.”
The cardinal pointed to paragraph 301 of Amoris laetitia, which reads: “it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”
By referring to “any irregular situation,” the exhortation, in his opinion, “intends to refer to all those who are married only civilly or only living in a de facto union or are bound by a previous canonical marriage,” the cardinal said.
Further quoting that paragraph, the cardinal said, “a subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values,’ or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin … factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision.”
Offering an example of a situation in which a person might be fully aware of the irregularity of their situation yet faces great difficulty in changing it for fear of falling into greater sin, Cardinal Coccopalmerio pointed to couples in a new union who can’t separate due to “serious reasons” such as the education of their children.
He also used the example of a woman cohabiting with a man and his three children, after they had been abandoned by his first wife.
In the book, the cardinal said the woman had saved the man “from a state of deep despair, probably from the temptation of suicide.” The couple had been together for 10 years, adding another child to the mix, with the woman making considerable sacrifices to help raise the other three.
While the woman in the hypothetical situation “is fully aware of being in an irregular situation” and would “honestly like to change her life, but evidently, she can’t,” the cardinal said, explaining that if she left, “the man would turn back to the previous situation and the children would be left without a mother.”
To leave, then, would mean the woman would fail to carry out her duties toward innocent people, namely, the children. Because of this, Cardinal Coccopalmerio said, “it’s then evident that she couldn’t leave without new sin” occurring.
Speaking on the point of continence, the cardinal pointed to St. John Paul II’s 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio.
In the document, St. John Paul II taught that the divorced-and-remarried who for serious reasons cannot satisfy the obligation to separate may receive absolution which would open the way to Communion only if they take on the duty to live in complete continence – to live as brother and sister.
However, for Cardinal Coccopalmerio, while the couples who are able to do this should, for others the temptation of infidelity increases the longer a couple refrains from sexual intimacy, potentially causing greater harm to the children.
He referred to footnote 329 of Amoris laetitia. The footnote is a reference to the quoting of St. John Paul II’s words in Familiaris consortio acknowledging that some of the divorced-and-remarried cannot, for serious reasons, separate. The footnote applies the words of Gaudium et spes that “where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined” – in its context, speaking about married couples – to “the divorced who have entered a new union.”
Cardinal Coccopalmerio stressed that while for him the desire to change one’s situation despite the inability to do so is enough to receive Communion, the conditions must be “carefully and authoritatively discerned” on the part of ecclesial authority, which would typically be the couple’s parish priest, who knows the couple “more directly” and can therefore offer adequate guidance.
For the cardinal, the only instance in which a couple in an irregular situation could be barred from Communion is when, “knowing they are in grave sin and being able to change, they have no sincere desire” to do so.
He also suggested that a diocesan office charged with advising on difficult marital situations could be “necessary, or at least useful.”
Cardinal Coccopalmerio was absent from his book presentation, and it was presented instead by Orazio La Rocca; Fr. Maurizio Gronchi; Fr. Giuseppe Costa, SDB; and Alfonso Cuateruccio.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio is the latest prelate to speak out on the question of Amoris laetitia and admission to Communion for the divorced-and-remarried. The exhortation has been met with a varied reception and intepretation within the Church.
Several bishops, including the bishops’ conferences of Germany and of Malta, have said the divorced-and-remarried may receive Communion.
Yet many have maintained the Church’s traditional discipline, including recently Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur and Bishop Stephen Lopes of the Ordinariate of St. Peter.
And Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has on multiple occasions maintained that Amoris laetitia is in continuity with Church teaching.
In an interview with Il Timone earlier this month, he said that Amoris laetitia “must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church.” He said that St. John Paul II’s teaching in Familiaris consortio “is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments.”
Confusion on this point, he said, stems from a failure to accept St. John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor.
Cardinal Müller suggested that in order to quell the confusion generated by the differing interpretations of Amoris laetitia, everyone ought to study the Church’s doctrine, beginning with Scripture, “which is very clear on marriage.”
“All of us must understand and accept the doctrine of Christ and of his Church, and at the same time be ready to help others to understand it and put it into practice even in difficult situations,” he stated.
Observing the difference between the statements of Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Coccopalmerio, Dr. Edward Peters, a professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, wrote that “the Church’s arguably two highest-ranking cardinals in the areas of canonical interpretation and the protection of doctrine and morals are in public, plain, and diametric opposition with each other concerning a crucial canonico-sacramental practice. This division cannot stand.”
[…]
What’s with these airplane interviews? Everything was so clear after the Pope snuggled up to Bonino, Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, Soros, Sachs, et al. Now the Pope confuses us again by saying he is against murder. How long Lord?!
Unlike pro-life heroes Popes St. JP II and BXVI, Pope Francis uses the papacy to legitimize worldwide abortion leaders like the Clinton Foundation. That is fraudulent. Who could be surprised since he told us in 2013 that abortion was not a priority of his pontificate, and every action confirms this travesty. If sins below the belt do not matter, why should the pregnancies that result? Why should anyone be impressed when Pope Francis rarely tacks abortion onto his interests? There is no one more poor than the unwanted child in the womb. Abortion and it’s proponents have thrived unchecked everywhere Bergoglio has been a Bishop. He has no credibility on the issue.
“God does not give up if we are late in responding to Him.” The murdered unborn are with God and praying for us.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-pope-interview/pope-says-church-must-end-obsession-with-gays-contraception-abortion-idUKBRE98I0S020130919
Yes. How long? You don’t play with life, you just rehabilitate rapists.
Mmm. I’ll be waiting to see how much coverage this presser gets in the so-called mainstream media.
There’s no need to pan the Pope. Especially when the pontiff is willing to stand up for human life and when he is willing to admonish us about the dangers of playing God with human life.
“Whether it is the law not to let the child grow in the mother’s womb or the law of euthanasia in disease and old age,” he said, “I am not saying it is a faith thing, but it is a human thing: there is bad compassion.”
Faith has no bearing? I’m confused
I think the Holy Father is saying that one doesn’t have to be a believer to know that abortion and euthanasia are wrong: the inviolability of human life is defensible according to reason.
He means that you don’t need to believe in God to know that a child in the womb and an elderly person are human beings and that to kill them is to kill a human being. It is a matter of DNA. A being with a human DNA is a human being. Whether you believe in God or in the gods or in no god doesn’t change the fact that you are killing a human being.
As Catholics, we believe that each human being is created in the image of God and has immeasurable value. That is a further step. He is trying to get the first fact across.
Those who support abortion and euthanasia keep trying to get people to believe that it is a matter of religious belief, not a matter of science. If it is a matter of religious belief, then one can believe in it if one wants. If it is a matter of science, then it is an objective fact. But people don’t like objective facts nowadays.
But if there is no God, no after life⁹ no suffering on the cross, why would abortion or euthanasia be wrong? If it was a case of one life over and out then the avoidance of suffering would be critical. Only Faith makes sense and gives purpose.
I believe that the recent president of the pro-life Democrats was an atheist. Is it unthinkable for someone to value human beings because of humanism and a knowledge of science?
I believe the Holy Father was trying to emphasize that killing has no place regardless of one’s religion (or no religion). This perspective is pretty consistent with his views on the death penalty and war.
Actually, it is not. He has never been consistent about anything, including life issues. A blanket condemnation of war and capital punishment is not pro-life. Moral applications of both save lives. And Francis has been soft on abortion in the past through his actions. His beliefs often appear to shift with his mood of the moment. A few years ago, after speaking out against euthanasia, he hastily added, “But the moral law must not be applied mechanically.” I’m glad he is mostly right on this occasion for a change even though there is a slight inference that euthanasia is more wrong now because of better management of pain, which is a falsehood. He still has trouble understanding that truth is eternal. It never changes. Still, maybe he is finally discovering some aspects of orthodox Catholic theology.
Yeah, miracles do occur, so yeah, he may discover and accept some aspects of orthodox Catholic theology. It is hoped that miracle will not be too long or late in occurring.
My interpretation would be that one needn’t have faith to condemn abortion and euthanasia. Anyone of good will committed to upholding principles of natural law could see their way to doing so. Faith commands us to obey the natural law. But one can do so without faith as well.
I would think that traditional, orthodox, backwardist Catholics would all – to a person – be very much aware that murdering the unborn and tossing the sick and useless eldering onto a garbage heap was morally offensive. Who was Francis reminding of Church teaching and the natural law? Surely not those he despises.
He was speaking to everyone, Catholics, non-Catholics, non-believers. Please see me previous comment in reply to knowall.
But, he has a habit of ‘running away from God.’ There are documents that have come out of Francis’ Vatican that have little or no mention of Christ. He speaks about evangelizing without proselytizing yet he shies away even from referencing Christ in his promotion of morality. Since when does giving preference to what we know by dint of our reason mean that we should avoid any mention of God? Let’s remember that Francis is not some university professor of philosophy; he is the Vicar of Christ.
We are encouraged by this papal reference to moral absolutes…
While tangential to our Holy Father’s focused message, a larger listing is supplied below. Hopeful, too, his clear message will be included—and broadened—at the end of Synod 2023, when “the leadership” offers its Questions for Reflection heading into Synod 2024 and its recommendations.
About the interim Reflections, here are three suggestions from the back bleachers:
FIRST, that “subsidiarity” will be substantially developed throughout, such that local bishops (within the “hierarchical communion” and as successors of the apostles are reinstated as more than initial “facilitators”). No need for centrally (mis)managed and larded up programs franchised to (pre-Vatican II) bishop administrators.Especially where prudential judgment is a factor, as in all Catholic Social Thought/Teaching.
SECOND, that the Synod members and the leadership, both, will discern clearly, and fully reject wherever the “smoke of Satan” might have ambiguously insinuated itself into the synodal rhetoric and shopping list.
THIRD, that clarity on how synodal engagement in the world fits into (does not replace) the higher mission of the Church—as is concisely clarified in mutually complementary parts of Gaudium et Spes and elsewhere:
Examples: “Earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ’s kingdom. Nevertheless, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the kingdom of God” (n. 39, citing Pope Pius XI), but also, yes, “The Christian who neglects his temporal duties neglects his duties toward his neighbor and even God, and jeopardizes his eternal soul” (n. 43).
AND, of course, Veritatis Splendor (nn. 56, 95, 115) which now explicitly incorporates [!] Natural Law and moral absolutes into the permanent Magisterium.
These non-ideological perspectives become greater synodal “concerns” as we seem to be drifting away from a world of so-called “progress” and toward one of disintegration, with sins of moral omission—inattention to blindsided and real victims of all kinds, to natural disasters, to invertebrate “tolerance” by uprooted culture, economics, politics and society—and by less-than-steadfast word games, imposed on moral/ecclesial certainties in some parts of the Church itself.
_____________________________________________
NOTE: From the Catechism and the Magisterium (n. 2033-5), those intrinsically evil acts which are immoral under all circumstances and non-negotiable, include: intentional killing of the innocent (nn. 2270, 2273), infanticide (n. 2268), abortion (n. 2273), euthanasia (n. 2277); AND sexual immorality (nn. 2352, 2353, 2356, 2357, 2370, 2380, 2381). And, from the SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, these significant entries: Gaudium et Spes, n. 27 third paragraph, and n. 79 second paragraph.
On second thought, are the above “recommendations” actually IMPERATIVES? Not to be deferred from 2023 to 2024? What kind of “leadership” cajoles Successors of the Apostles (apostello: “sent”) to have a meeting about a meeting?
The Holy Spirit? Did he do this at Pentecost…”come back next year”? Maybe yes to a phased approach, but what really are the ground rules???
After a solid decade of deliberately – and undeniably – uttering confusing, contradictory and divisive statements, Pope Francis has nevertheless revealed his cunning method of eroding Catholic belief. Pope Francis gushes over his abortionist, homosexualist and pan-en-theist friends and then – after exposing himself as a Globalist cheerleader – he shrewdly says something “Catholic” to neutralize criticism, thereby protecting the platform of the papacy he requires to continue attacking the full and authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Pope Francis truly believes that abortionists are “hitmen”, then why does he honour hitmen with the Order of St. Gregory ? If abortion is murder, then why does Pope Francis call murderers “good Catholics” ? These questions are rhetorical – and the answers are obvious.
Honestly, my first thought was that he was just playing to the crowd. He might believe. He might not. I don’t honestly know for sure.
Bingo. Thank you, Father. It is hard for me to fathom how any believing Catholic can take any statement like this from PF seriously. His actions speak louder than his words.
I thought you are supposed to “hate the sin and love the sinner”. Now you’ve got me totally confused! How are we supposed to talk to sinners?
What does the duplicity of Francis have to do with that admonition of Our Lord considering that the criticisms here are that Francis has a long record of hypocrisy on the matter of abortion and being supportive of the world’s most notorious abortionists rather than “hating their sins”? What you might take into consideration is the deep-rooted inconsistency of Francis, a reality that traditionalists or orthodox or simply conservative Catholics (Catholics who are Catholic) have been agonizingly aware.
Francis slanders faithful, non-ideological Catholics around the world as faithless ideologues, which his warped sociology equates as Americanism, while remaining oblivious to his own devout ideological views of global social management by Davos elitists and his non-religious faith in their syncretistic cult of inevitable progress knowing full well of their imperatives of mandatory abortion policies in pursuit of their secular utopia, which he also affirms with his theology where God changes His mind to accommodate His creation. Thus, his preposterous word for those who do not see God as an idiot as backwardists.
Whatever religious beliefs Francis actually has is a mystery for anyone willing to be honest about the totality of what he has said. But his moral sense has been blowing with the wind for a long time and Catholics are wise to not take impulsive statements too seriously when he might well undermine them a month later before the same global audience. Hailing him as a supreme example means we share the moral evil when he does damage later.
I appreciate CWR’s sidebar of past articles. I just now read “Michigan religious order criticizes the LCWR”, June 14, 2012.
Congratulate me! I’m only 11 years behind!
Belated kudos to the Michigan sisters.
At this stage of his game, I don’t give a whit what he believes, thinks, or claims to receive from his ‘holy’ spirit. I’ve given the pope up and over to God. Is there any reason why we need attend to words coming from forked tongues?
Thank you to those who clarified my “faith” quandary. It is difficult to reach those who are so obtuse on the future of the human race, but perhaps it will impact some.
To get a correct perspective on Bergoglio’s remarks on life issues Google up:
Actions do indeed speak far louder than words.
How impressed would you be if Confederate president Jefferson Davis had occasionally remarked that racism was wrong. His actions would far outweigh his words, right? So it is with Bergoglio on the life issues.
From womb to tomb, life is sacred and a precious gift.
Amen Papa. Bravo, belle parole da vivere.
Amen Papa!
These comments underscore the major problem of this papacy — it’s not when he’s clear like this, it’s when he’s ambiguous that’s the problem.
I’m sure the crowd he hangs out with doesn’t help him in these matters.
“I am not saying it is a faith thing, but it is a human thing: there is bad compassion.” . . . by defining the argument to be a non-spiritual “thing”, pardon me for thinking so, but doesn’t he just undermine his own authority to speak on the matter? I am not looking for excuses for the man, but I am also not looking at him through what years of disappointment have wrought.
One of Pope Francis’ cunning tactics is to speak truth and falsehood on alternate days, thereby dividing the Catholic faithful, pitting them against each other, arguing over what they think he may have said – instead of forming a unified phalanx that could effectively battle against his Anti-gospel.
You don’t play with life.
I will pray for you under obligation and out of love. God will hear my prayer.
Sinner that I am, you can not tell me or anyone else better than I or worse than I, to “Let’s go to the peripheries”, when it is leading them to co-operate with purveyors of abortion and contraception.
You can not. You shall not. The Lord will not have you change subjects like that let alone with so many whimsies attending and ignoring the one who speaks to you in His Name.