Vatican official: adultery incompatible with reception of Holy Communion [CC]

In an address to a Vatican conference on the complementarity of man and woman in marriage, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family spoke about the indissolubility of …

More…

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23275

Vatican official: adultery incompatible with reception of Holy Communion

Catholic World News - November 19, 2014

In an address to a Vatican conference on the complementarity of man and woman in marriage, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family spoke about the indissolubility of marriage and the incompatibility of adultery and the reception of Holy Communion.

“Redemption … strengthens the indissoluble character of the covenant between the spouses, which existed when Creation began (the principle Jesus indicates to the Pharisees, but that their hardheartedness prevented them from perceiving),” said Bishop Jean Laffitte.

He continued:

The body of the spouses, sacramentally inscribed in the horizon of Redemption, experiences the assumption of all the original values inscribed in its nature. This excludes, for example, adultery, which not only contradicts the nature of the marital covenant, but also deprives the body of its deeper meaning (adultery will never be a gift); adultery—the fact is better understood in this light—is incompatible with the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ; but Redemption is also operating, primarily within man, purifying his heart, because it is in the heart that evil desires are born: ‘I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Mt. 5:27-28).

Good to see.

restating the obvious, i suppose. maybe it’s needed.

It is sad that this even has to be said… If you were to pull back the covers of adultery you would see Satan smiling back at you.

:eek:

Agreed. Very sad testimony about the state of the Church when blatant, basic, common-sense teachings have to be stated and restated regularly.

…the fact is better understood in this light—is incompatible with the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ; but Redemption is also operating, primarily within man, purifying his heart, because it is in the heart that evil desires are born: ‘I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Mt. 5:27-28).

Yes but why are men discriminated against here? :slight_smile:

Well, we took a pretty big hit thanks to Eve. Fair is fair. :slight_smile:

I always think that these who gets communion things just stir up debate. Its your choice if you get communion, nobodies going to stop you. Restating obvious rules won’t change anything.

Won’t stop them in thinking a note from the Vatican will somehow help or excuse them when they stand before God.

C’est ça, mon ami, c’est ça. Exactement. C’est très curieux.

Should we make a list of things that we would prefer no longer hearing at Church? There are some things that I’m a bit weary at hearing but maybe the next time I hear them, it might give me further understanding.

Saint Paul said, So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Everything else about Church reminds us to be faithful to the teachings of Christ and his Church to make us better. It’s easy to lose your way without those reminders.

In another news post it was stated that: Cardinal O’Malley said,“If I were founding a church, I’d love to have women priests, but Christ founded it, and what he has given us is something different.”

(This is from me) If I were founding a Church, I would want everyone to partake in communion regardless but I don’t make those rules. Reminding others of those rules might prevent them from making a serious mistake that as you say, “Its your choice if you get communion, nobodies going to stop you.” Perhaps with a reminder, they will stop themselves.

well, i thought it was obvious, but you’re probably right. there are so many mortal sins, maybe announcing one a week before communion would help.

:slight_smile:

The one thing I notice is that these affirmations in favour of the teaching of the Church about who can receive Communion and who can’t are being made by individuals in a private capacity. Nothing that adds up to an official reaffirmation of the constant practice of the Church, which is absolutely necessary given that the question has been left wide open - and weighted in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees - by the final Synodal document. Until this is done the confusion continues and gets worse.

Beautiful things are being said about the nobility, etc. of marriage between man and woman, but if they are not backed up by exclusion from the sacraments for those who live in what is not a marriage then they mean nothing. What is the point of extolling the wonders of living in the Catholic fold if you leave the gate open for the wolves? (and wolves they will be)

i thought the final synodal document was not weighted in favor of remarriage, and it was the interim one that wasn’t clear?

The final document has been examined in a few threads. Here is the relevant paragraph concerning Communion for remarried divorcees. I’ve coloured in green the section that is against giving Communion and in red the section that is in favour.

Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).

Notice the length given to the arguments in favour and the brevity for those against. Notice also how the arguments in favour follow those against, with the natural implication that they refute them.

The quote from the CCC is bogus - the Catechism is talking about the degree of free will in an ***individual ***sinful act - how responsible one is in the heat of the moment. A union that is not a marriage is an ongoing state of life that the couple have freely and voluntarily committed themselves to.

Notice the use of the term ‘insisted’ applied to Synod fathers who were against Communion for remarried divorcees, and ‘expressed’ for those in favour.

Cardinal Kasper couldn’t have made a better job of this paragraph.

The Sensus Fidelium has always held great weight, so don’t underestimate it. And aren’t synods and ecumenical councils convened for the very purpose of defending and clarifying the faith? As outrageous as it sounds regarding divine law and morality, the reality is that our prelates do not seem to agree. Throughout history, it has always taken a church council or formal pronouncement to silence the mavericks when they become so loud and to purify the Church when it becomes the most necessary. We’ll just have to be patient and wait for the Church to uphold the same teaching as she has always done.

The CDF doc recently released was official:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23232

So was the letter on the Synod from the Ghana Bishops Conference (as far as their authority goes):

cbcgha.org/cbc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=508:catholic-bishops-issue-2014-communique-in-accra

Also (I would argue) the speech from the Secretary of the Pontifical Council of the Family, since he spoke in his official capacity:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23275

The interim doc had a very strong progressive tone to it, although it didn’t actually say much specifically about the communion issue. The final doc, presents both sides of the argument, so it depends how you read it.

Most Vatican analysts, media etc read it as a positive for those who want the traditional teaching to remain (not that the issue is decided by any means, but that the traditional side sort of “won that round” so to speak). I certainly think so, and there have been more good signs since the Synod as well.

As you know, I disagree with your reading of this, so we don’t need to re-hash it :wink:

But I do want to mention that, in addition to what I posted above, the following have also happened since the Synod:

  • The President of the Polish Bishops Conference (Gadecki) affirmed the teaching
  • And Cards Pell, Turkson and Napier have suddenly been involved in planning the 2015 Synod
  • Cards Muller, Pell, Dolan and Wuerl have all made very encouraging remarks
  • Francis has suddenly mentioned the permanence of marriage several times
  • Benedict has removed a questionable passage from one of old essays, to make his position clear

I think these are all good reasons to be rather optimistic.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.