Amoris Laetitia - footnote 351.

In the few days since the Vatican’s release of Amoris Laetitia, there has been talk of footnote 351 being a “smoking gun” that endorses communion for the divorced and remarried who lack an annulment.

In the text preceding this note, Pope Francis observes that, while certain individuals may be objectively in sin, they may not be fully culpable. This is nothing new; the Church has long taught that mortal sin requires the presence of three criteria: grave matter, full knowledge and freedom of the will (CCC 1857). So the pope is saying that, though grave matter is always present in an irregular union, the other two criteria may not be.

In such cases, the pope says, the Church can not merely state a rule as though it were “a stone to throw.” Rather, it must be a source of help for the couple to “grow in the life of grace.” And then he adds this footnote:

In certain cases [emphasis added], this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.” … I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

In “certain cases,” but which? If the text that precedes the note is of any help, the pope would seem to be referring to cases where there is grave matter but not the other two criteria for mortal sin. If there is no mortal sin, nothing bars one from the Eucharist. Only a pastor who knows and has counseled the individuals in question can make this determination.

The above is many quotes on the footnote 351 of the document.  It is probably the least offensive since it does just ask the question and not run into conclusions of heresy by the Pope.   It is the starting point and what is being protected that we must examine.

The trouble is that the starting point for many people is the Catechism and its teachings must be printed on every person as an absolute.   So we learn that every person who deliberately misses Mass on Sunday is in Mortal sin.   Mrs Smith did not go to Mass last Sunday so there is no doubt about it, she is in mortal sin.   We presume that God judges from  the Catechism too.   As we mature in the Faith we should come across words like culpability and God sees the Heart.   Just look at the Theif on the Cross, he probably murdered and plundered and as he himself said "We are getting what we deserve"  Christ did not agree and told him "This Day you will be with me in Paradise"  What a lucky man.  We have much the same story with the woman taken in Adultery  "Neither will I condemn you, go and sin no more".   Christ was not interested in their sin, he was interested in their repentant hearts.   She was commanded not to sin so he was not making light of it.  But Jesus always comes in at the person level.   Yes, he knows the rules but he also knows how difficult it can be to follow them.   He does not make excuses though for he calls us to be perfect.   I believe that is where Pope Francis in his ministry is trying to do, come in at the person level.   Even a person with a thousand mortal sins  is loved by God.

Let me go back to the second last sentence.   The writer claims 'If there is no mortal sin, nothing bars one from the Eucharist"  But why must the person necessarily be in mortal sin.  Did the Pope mention that?   There is the assumption that everyone who marries a second time is in mortal sin?   When God looks at the heart of the person is that what he sees.  No again we are looking at the person from the Catechism.   And there are occasions when a man and a woman living together can go to Holy Communion and that is when they are living in a celibate relationship.    But let us be quite clear on this, whatever the circumstances of the second marriage a sin was committed and another consideration is that if the woman or man or both go to  Communion they are committing a scandal and perhaps there is too much of that in the Church today and Pope Francis is trying to point to an honest and trustworthy solution with does not go against the teachings of Christ.   It should be the fear of scandal and destroying the vision of young people as marriage being a sacrament that should draw the priest to help people in irregular marriages.   A priest can never ignore a soul that seeks union with God and as the Pope said the Church cannot just quote a rule and use it as a stone to throw - there must be dialogue.

One last thing I would say.  Since the lies and deceits of the Spirit of Vatican II, there has been not interest whatsoever in the breakup of marriage in Scotland, England and Wales.   There has been no examination of the damage done to children, not even the fact that they do not come to Church.   I am hoping that somebody will get round to discussing that part of the document so that I can read it.   God help us all at our judgement.