Posted on 02/14/2017 12:46:03 PM PST by BlessedBeGod
Evelyn Waugh’s character Charles Ryder described his friend Sebastian’s protracted acts of self-destruction as “a blow, expected, repeated, falling upon a bruise, with no smart or shock of surprise, only a dull and sickening pain and the doubt whether another like it could be borne” (Brideshead Revisited, 1945) . I thought of Waugh’s words as I read, in the wake of the Maltese Disaster and the German bishops’ slightly more nuanced program to the same effect, some excerpts translated from Francesco Cdl. Coccopalmerio’s new, short book on Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia.
If the excerpts I read are accurate, the President of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts (the body charged with issuing binding interpretations of ecclesiastical legal texts, notably the Code of Canon Law), comes down squarely on the side of the Maltese and Germans in holding that Catholics living in open contradiction to Church teaching on the permanence of marriage and in disregard of Church teaching that marriage is the only proper setting for sexual intercourse, may and should, after “an appropriate period of discernment”, be admitted to the sacraments of Reconciliation and holy Communion.
Per Rorate Caeli, Coccopalmerio holds: “The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabiting, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion must be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment . . .Yes, therefore, to admission to the sacraments for those who, despite living in irregular situations, sincerely ask for admission into the fullness of ecclesial life, it is a gesture of openness and profound mercy on the part of Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift, but one which cannot be reached by everyone.” Fr. Z’s red-line translation reads similarly.
These words, assuming they accurately reflect the cardinal’s position, are more blows upon a swollen bruise.
It is important to recall that, despite being published by the Vatican’s publishing house and to be rolled out in a Vatican press conference {which it seems the cardinal suddenly backed-out of attending of this morning}, Coccopalmerio’s book does not suffice as a vehicle for “authentic interpretation” of canon law itself, let alone is it a response by the Holy See to the Four Cardinals’ dubia—important, I say, because Coccoplamerio apparently stakes out, along with the Maltese and the Germans, an extreme position on reception of sacraments by divorced-and-remarried Catholics—a position not actually taken, whatever might be his personal predelictions, by Pope Francis in Amoris—one that effectively endorses the absolution of those who do not, at the time of their Confession, intend to amend their conduct (contrary to the canonical and ecclesial values behind Canons 959 and 980) and which places confessors in proximate danger of committing the crime of solicitation in Confession. Further, by urging ministers of holy Communion to distribute the sacrament to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” (contrary to the canonical and ecclesial values behind Canon 915), Coccopalmerio’s advice not only facilitates the irreverent reception of holy Communion, it tends toward giving what the Church has always recognized as classical scandal. Of course, those undeterred by my arguments offered on these points elsewhere are unlikely to be persuaded by my repeating them here, so I simply note them and move on, except to make one observation.
A few weeks ago, Cdl Muller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gave an interview that upheld the traditional practice of withholding holy Communion from divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Now, Cdl Coccopalmeria has published a booklet in which he apparently says that, subject only to the toothless requirement of ‘discerning their situation’, such Catholics may and should be admitted to holy Communion. In other words, 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.
Anyone. Thanks.
Please look at my question at #2.
I'm disappointed that Mr. Peters only refers to the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion by unrepentant adulterers as "irreverent". Surely, as a canon lawyer, he knows that such an act is not only"irreverent" but a sacrilege of the Most Blessed Sacrament and an occasion of mortal sin for both the communicant and the priest (if the priest is aware of the communicant's adultery).
The crime of solicitation refers only to violations of the Sixth Commandment.
It occurs when a priest, in or about the confessional, and/or the sacrament of confession (i.e., even if the sacrament/absolution does not take place), recommends, encourages, condones, etc., a violation of the sixth commandment—by word, or a letter, etc., whether the sin is to occur with the priest or with a third party. (Or, perhaps, some solitary sin.)
The mere act of absolving such sins when the penitent has manifested the intention to continue the sins is solicitation. The absolution is invalid—as it is when the priest is unaware of the absence of contrition.
Considering that the vast majority of priests condone contraception, sodomy, fornication, and masturbation, you begin to get a sense of the crisis.
Peters is using the appropriate vocabulary. His audience is educated. They don’t need to be reminded with lurid prose of all the dimensions of every act. “Irreverent,” in this context, MEANS “sacrilegious,” etc.
It is enough, among educated Catholics, to say “Eucharist.” It is not necessary, like a famous priest, to say, EACH AND EVERY time the Eucharist is mentioned, “the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.”
Thank you for this answer.
It is indeed a deep-going stinking rot: and this is NOT what Pope Francis wants to root out when he speaks of “reforming” corrupt clergy.
As far I'm concerned, and I guess I'm one of the of uneducated in yours and Peters' "audience”, I consider receiving Holy Communion while on the hoof or in the paw to be “irreverent”. But uneducated me thinks knowingly receiving or giving Holy Communion to an unrepentant sinner in a state of mortal sin is a sacrilege of the Most Holy Blessed Sacrament and an additional mortal sin for those who knowingly commit it.
I'm sorry that neither of you two have more respect for the Blessed Sacrament.
You are eager to interpret Peters in the most uncharitable (and preposterous) way possible.
Peters uses the vocabulary of the professional canonist. He uses the appropriate terms, not the purple prose of some preachers.
Canonists and moral theologians do not throw the term “mortal sin” around promiscuously. It is, in fact, the wrong term to use in most situations. A “grave delict” or “grave matter” are more often correct.
The profligate use of colorful, extravagant, or emotional language is not the measure of one’s faith.
You are revealing yourself to be bitter, hot-headed, uncharitable, and ignorant.
Maybe for you and yours; but not for me and mine.
The word “Eucharist” is a transliteration of the Greek word eucharistia, which is itself a translation of the Hebrew word berekah. All three words have the meaning of thanksgiving, or praise for the wonderful works of God.
I’m more upset with you than Peters.
Now you are sounding just like Bergoglio. Shall I start an Arthur's Little Book of Insults?
So may I venture to guess that you don't offer the TLM?
I agree with you. Irreverent is receiving communion in a pair of shorts or in your hand. This is much worse than irreverent. I don’t think has to do with his “educated” audience, but perhaps just a poor choice of words. How has he described it in the past?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.