Philadelphia archbishop: Divorced Catholics must avoid sex

I do not think this article accurately represents what the Archbishop said or what the Pope said in Amoris Laetitia. I worry there is a political agenda being pushed here, trying to sow opposition among the bishops where at most there are differences of emphasis in a shared uniform teaching (recall the fond remarks of Pope Francis for Abp Chaput and vice versa at the World Meeting of Families last year). Notice that this article does not contain a link to what Abp Chaput said and that the photograph was no doubt selected to send a negative message of the Archbishop (this trick fooled Bruce below – see his comment). Here it is a link to Archbishop Chaput’s document: http://archphila.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AOP_AL-guidelines.pdf By my read, Archbishop Chaput’s document is full of empathy, mercy and understanding, and of using all approved Church-sanctioned means (i.e. those approved by Pope Francis) to getting the person back into full communion with the Church, if they are not, including a timely annulment process, which is strongly encouraged in the document. The document also notes that Pope Francis is AL said “neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases” [Amoris Laetitia 300] and that Cardinal Schönborn confirmed this meaning. Here are some other quotes: “Church ministers, moved by mercy, should adopt a sensitive pastoral approach in all such situations – an approach both patient but also faithfully confident in the saving truth of the Gospel and the transforming power of God’s grace, trusting in the words of Jesus Christ, who promises that “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (Jn 8:32). Pastors should strive to avoid both a subjectivism that ignores the truth or a rigorism that lacks mercy.” “Likewise, parishes should be keenly concerned for the spiritual good of those who find themselves separated or divorced for a long time. Some persons, aware that a valid marriage bond is indissoluble, consciously refrain from a new union and devote themselves to carrying out their family and Christian duties. They face no obstacle to receiving Communion and other sacraments. Indeed, they should receive the sacraments regularly, and they deserve the warm support of the Christian community, since they show extraordinary fidelity to Jesus Christ. God is faithful to them even when their spouses are not, a truth that fellow Catholics should reinforce.” “In some cases, one can reasonably ask whether an original marriage bond was valid, and thus whether grounds may exist for a decree of nullity (an “annulment”). In our age, such grounds are not uncommon. People in those circumstances should be strongly encouraged to seek the assistance of a marriage tribunal of the Church.” “The divorced and remarried should be welcomed by the Catholic community. Pastors should ensure that such persons do not consider themselves as “outside” the Church. On the contrary, as baptized persons, they can (and should) share in her life. They are invited to attend Mass, to pray, and to take part in the activities of the parish. Their children – whether from an original marriage or from their current relationship – are integral to the life of the Catholic community, and they should be brought up in the faith. Couples should sense from their pastors, and from the whole community, the love they deserve as persons made in the image of God and as fellow Christians.” “At the same time, as Amoris Laetitia notes, priests should “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop. Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and penance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves: how they have acted toward their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; if they made attempts at reconciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences does the new relationship have on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage” [Amoris Laetitia 300]. Amoris Laetitia continues: “What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which ‘guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. . . . [T]his discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity as proposed by the Church’” [Amoris Laetitia 300]. “In light of this, priests must help the divorced and civilly-remarried to form their consciences according to the truth. This is a true work of mercy. It should be undertaken with patience, compassion and a genuine desire for the good of all concerned, sensitive to the wounds of each person, and gently leading each toward the Lord. Its purpose is not condemnation, but the opposite: a full reconciliation of the person with God and neighbor, and restoration to the fullness of visible communion with Jesus Christ and the Church. In fact, pastors must always convey Catholic teaching faithfully to all persons – including the divorced and remarried – both in the confessional as well as publicly. They should do this with great confidence in the power of God’s grace, knowing that, when spoken with love, the truth heals, builds up, and sets free (cf. Jn 8:32)." "Can the divorced and civilly-remarried receive the sacraments? As a general matter, baptized members of the Church are always in principle invited to the sacraments. The confessional’s doors are always open to the repentant and contrite of heart. What of Communion? Every Catholic, not only the divorced and civilly-remarried, must sacramentally confess all serious sins of which he or she is aware, with a firm purpose to change, before receiving the Eucharist. In some cases, the subjective responsibility of the person for a past action may be diminished. But the person must still repent and renounce the sin, with a firm purpose of amendment."

Isn't Philadelphia the City of Brotherly Love alla St Francis or am I missing something ? Perhaps gluttony has overtaken love and compassion in this Bishop's myopic life !!!!

IMHO its gutless for America Magazine to run an AP sourced Article on this important subject rather than report directly. Only a rube would not pick up on the Senior Editor's motive. And is in my opinion, more evidence of the New York Provincial's lack of Oversight.

The title of this AP article would have been no more and no less accurate if it read: "Pope Francis: Divorced Catholics Must Avoid Sex" and if the following picture of the Holy Father was attached http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1317371/images/n-POPE-FRANCIS-628x314.jpg. The Editors need to examine their consciences on their motives for posting this AP article.

There is significant disagreement among bishops about the interpretation and implementation of Amoris Laetititia. Of note, consider the interpretation of Bishop McElroy, Bishop of San Diego which is quite different from Bishop Chaput. You can google this issue.

Two excellent articles on the “Chaput Controversy” by Daily News reporters Christine M. Flowers & Ronnie Polaneczky on the philly.com website today. Both are excellent take-downs of Philadelphia Mayor Kenney & the 'shocked' media. Flowers is especially hilarious. Here is Polaneczky: “In Amoria Laetitia, Francis clearly reiterates that marriage is between a man and woman, monogamous, open to new life, and permanent (except when it can be annulled, but that's for another column). Any sexual relationship other than that is "irregular." This includes same-sex unions; cohabitating unmarried sexual partnerships; and divorced and civilly remarried ones. "We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability," Francis writes, "but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage." And in discussing the dignity and mission of the family, Francis quotes the Synod Gang directly: "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family." So Chaput and the pope are on the same page, even if Kenney and others - including me - don't like it.” “Where the pope is unequivocal, though, is in not allowing certain Catholics to be in leadership positions, which is not to say he sees no place for them in the church. "Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others," he writes. "This is a case of something which separates from the community . . ."Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest." "So - sorry, Mayor Kenney - if prickly Chaput's guidelines make him un-Christian, then the warm 'n' cuddly pope is un-Christian, too.” And here is Christine Flowers: “Chaput did not simply focus on sexual issues and marriage, but you would not know that from the reaction to his announcement. That is because news reports obsessed over the fact that gays, lesbians, noncelibate divorcees, and noncelibate unmarried couples were told that they could not receive Communion since they were not in a "state of grace." Many Philadelphians, Catholic and not, did not appreciate that earth-shattering, completely unprecedented, and wholly unexpected observation that those who are engaging in sexual intimacy outside of valid marriages should not take Communion. Yes, I know, it's shocking that the Catholic church is just now clarifying something that puzzled generations of the faithful. You do not need the Rosetta Stone to decipher this particular principle. As noted by Kenneth Gavin, spokesman for the Archdiocese: "The notion that a person needs to be in a state of grace to receive Communion is nothing new. That goes back to St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. 'Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.' " "But Jim Kenney, whose tenure as a constitutional scholar ended the moment he trashed the First Amendment by suggesting that Chick-fil-A be banned from doing business in the city because its owner expressed his personal opposition to same-sex marriage, has decided to become a theologian. Drawing on his vast knowledge of canon law, he has decided that Archbishop Chaput is "not Christian" and formalized that pronouncement in, what else, a tweet. And many Philadelphians who couldn't distinguish a state of grace from the State of Alaska applauded him.” “It is true that many Catholics disagree with the church's teachings on chastity. They are well within their right to protest with their feet. But they do not get to rewrite centuries of established doctrine simply because this doesn't fit their user-friendly view from the pew. It may be upsetting to unmarried, sexually active gays and lesbians (or gays united in a marriage not recognized by the church) to be told that they are not in a state of grace and that they are, in fact, sinning. But it can't be a shock." “So this whole controversy about Chaput's directives is a sham, created by people who get a kick out of trashing a church that, by its mere existence, makes them uncomfortable. Those who point fingers and talk about how the church is in no position to preach about morality are exactly the sort of people who preach about morality, the kind that says you should be able to do whatever makes you feel good.” http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160711_Chaput_controversy_is_a_sham.html

Below is a Washington Post article that demonstrates the differences in interpretation and implementation of Bishop Chaput and Bishop McElroy. They are not the same and this reflects, in part, the divide over AL with our Church. Pope Francis urged mercy toward divorced Catholics. Now bishops ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../pope-francis-urge...

OK… the rules have once more been explicitly stated. So there is no doubt as to what they are. Having done so, we are still left with the question that Pope Francis asks of us, what are we doing to encourage those who do not follow the rules to be more participatory in the life of the Catholic Church, not only for their own benefit, for the benefit of any families or children that they have, but also for the benefit of the Church’s members, because Christ’s love, justice, and mercy does not solely reside in those who follow the rules. I know too many such people who are more Christian than some rules followers. That’s what I find exasperatingly and frighteningly missing in almost all the commentary here.

I would appreciate hearing the opinions of others on another area of Abp. Chaput's pastoral guidelines, namely the instructions on those who should / should not be permitted to serve on parish councils or serve as lectors. For the sake of this particular argument, I am willing to cede ground on the restrictions noted for those in positions of "instructing the faithful" and "dispensing Communion". 1. What is the basis of this restriction? I have searched the Catechism and the GIRM, and have not found justification for Abp. Chaput's exclusion. 2. Is the notion of "serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can ONLY produce moral confusion in the community" applicable only to these categories of irregular sexual relationships? Again, for the sake of this argument, I am willing to concede that some "restrictions on" or "qualifications for" might apply to certain roles within the parish community. But who else should NOT be allowed to serve on parish councils? Who else should NOT be allowed to serve as lectors? I think the Abp.'s guidelines might be more acceptable if they included a broader set of criteria of those considered ineligible for these postions. Surely there are other categories of parishioners that by their occupations, activities, relationships and affiliations offer serious counter-witness to Catholic belief. Elected officials of the Democrat party, possibly? registered Democrats? 3. What restrictions should apply to other members of the parish community? Musical directors? Organists? Choir members? are their relationships or practices less likely to produce moral confusion? Or should the restrictions be extended to these as well? Thank you for considering these questions in a spirit of genuine dialogue. peace, James