Posted on 07/19/2016 10:11:31 AM PDT by marshmallow
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, July 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic bishop simultaneously skewered those celebrating supposed changes in Church doctrine and defended a fellow bishop who instructed Catholics in his diocese to follow the Church’s teaching on sexual morality.
Responding to a “misleading” Associated Press article that ran in Illinois' State Journal-Register, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, wrote in the same newspaper that the guidelines Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput issued on proper disposition to receive Holy Communion “are certainly correct” because they uphold Biblical teaching.
The AP article pitted Chaput’s actions against Pope Francis. The article said Chaput "is closing the door opened by Pope Francis to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion, saying the faithful in his archdiocese can only do so if they abstain from sex and live 'as brother and sister.'"
Earlier this month, Chaput issued diocesan guidelines for the implementation of Pope Francis’ controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which many Catholic theologians and philosophers have warned could undermine the Church’s moral teaching.
“As with all magisterial documents, Amoris Laetitia is best understood when read within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life,” Chaput wrote, and the document should be read in continuity with the Church’s longstanding teaching that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may receive Holy Communion provided they live as “brother and sister.”
“As I explained in my statement about the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis on April 8, the date it was issued, ‘There are no changes to canon law or church doctrine introduced in this document,’” Paprocki wrote. “I addressed this conclusion in greater detail in my column in our diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Times, on May 1, explaining that in-flight press conferences on an airplane, apostolic exhortations and footnotes ‘by their very nature are not vehicles for introducing or..........
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
They don't assume that. Since they're not omniscient, they hope "people know what they're doing."
Any woman who gets an abortion KNOWS the mortal sin she is committing. Have you ever seen a post abortion woman receive Holy Communion before going to Confession? Is the priest supposed to ask her at the altar: "Have you gone to Confession since your abortion?" How would HE know if she did or did not have an abortion? Women MIGHT go to another church for Holy Communion. Who knows. If she did so then SHE will have a reckoning one day, won't she? OR she might go to confession some day, truly regretting her sins. You wouldn't know that, of course.
Since I don't hear confessions, probably not but it's irrelevant anyway since we're talking about the Church giving Communion to those living in sin. A priest hears confessions, of course and it's in confession that he counsels those who come to him with serious sin and with possible questions about Communion. A priest who hears the confession of a divorced and civilly remarried Catholic has certain obligations to that person if he becomes aware of his or her marital situation in confession. Those obligations are spelled out in Familiaris consortio and numerous other places. Are we making any progress here yet?
I don't hear confessons and I don't give out Communion but this in no way detracts from the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege, nor a priest's obligation to prevent it when possible. A priest who knowingly facilitates a sacrilegious Communion shares in this sin and also commits another; the sin of scandal since the sacrilege may be seen and understood by others.
This is the essence of Chaput's and Paprocki's statements. They're priests, by the way. That means they sometimes have to dispense counsel on moral issues, usually when people come to them but also in public when they preach. Since they're also bishops, they have a responsibility to the priests who serve under them to make sure that when they do likewise, they also follow Church teaching.
What were you saying about "judgment", again?
A couple who are living as “brother and sister” may receive Communion anyplace where they can do so without scandal. Such a place would be where they are unknown, or, where they are known to be living chastely. In a small parish in a small town, that wouldn’t be uncommon.
Do the people in question have a responsibility to state they are living chastely to those that know that they shouldn’t be receiving if they aren’t living chastely? Do those people that know it isn’t right if they aren’t living chastely have a responsibility to bring it up to them or tell the priest or what? If the priest is told that they are living chastely, does he then have a responsibility to tell that to those that bring the situation to his attention, or direct them to ask the couple or what?
I guess all this presumes nothing is said about it in confession of course.
Freegards
I don’t know what you mean by “presumes nothing is said about it in Confession.” A priest cannot speak about or act on anything he learns in Confession.
A couple who are living together but have no right to conjugal relations must abstain from such relations. If they are doing so, they may receive Communion. They have an obligation not to cause scandal when they receive Communion. Scandal can be avoided by receiving Communion where they are not known at all, or by informing those whose business it is that they are living chastely.
If I were a pastor with such a couple in my parish, and another parishioner were to bring it up, I would tell him he has no reason to be concerned.
Been looking in the mirror again?
How would this priest KNOW whether or not a “proper annulment” has been granted?
No, but I haven't read any papal encyclicals. But, if his letter/encyclicals are about faith and morals, then he would be right.
I posted an excerpt up thread in #19.
Do you have a problem with what is written in that excerpt?
The Pope, cardinals and bishops are all priests and they know what they are supposed to counsel people to do.
They also know their obligations, a lot better than you do, I might add.
I don't plan on reading it. Do you have a problem with that?
You won't read a short, two paragraph excerpt from Familiaris consortio written by John Paul II?
Including Chaput and Paprocki?
Hmmm, now YOU are telling me what I need.You have NO IDEA what I need. Only God knows what I need.
You have a lot of gall. You must be Gallic.
If they believe that it is their duty, then they are bound to do it.
I will read what I want, when I want and don’t plan on taking any direction from you. Is that clear enough?
Do what?
Do what? Their DUTY. What else?
Not clear at all.
Why would a Catholic refuse to read Familiaris Consortio?
Which is?
“I don’t know what you mean by “presumes nothing is said about it in Confession.” A priest cannot speak about or act on anything he learns in Confession.”
That was my point I guess. The whole public logic train ceases at that point. Most Catholics, if they cared about it at all in the first place, might talk their concerns over in confession.
“If I were a pastor with such a couple in my parish, and another parishioner were to bring it up, I would tell him he has no reason to be concerned.”
I’ve never heard of it ever being brought up to a priest by a concerned party. There is probably a reason or reasons for that. It might happen a lot, sure, but I haven’t heard about it anyhow.
Freegards
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.