Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English

Question

Dear Father Angelo,

Good evening, I am Massimiliano, I will be brief.

I was wondering: why is it that John Paul II, in spite of his Magisterium, did not admit remarried divorcees, with a valid marriage and no continence in their new relationship, with an invincibly and involuntarily erroneous conscience, to Eucharistic communion while Pope Francis relying on the same Magisterium apparently did?

Thank you very much!

Answer from the priest

Dear Massimiliano,

1. You said: it seems that Francis admits them.

But these words are not written in Amoris laetitia (the joy of love), as noted by a trustworthy Jesuit, Father Domenico Marafioti, dean of the Theological Seminary of Southern Italy.

2. In the whole discussion, two principles of divine law must stand firm.

The first: it is not possible to give Holy Communion to those living in mortal sin.

The second: sexual relations out of wedlock are not lawful.

3. Therefore, if a person is living in an irregular state, but is repentant and living in grace, they may receive the sacraments of the Church, with the condition of excluding scandal.

Plainly, to live in grace sexual relations out of wedlock must be excluded.

4. With regard to the invincibly and involuntarily erroneous conscience, the priest has the duty to enlighten it not only for the sake of such people, but also out of respect for the rest of the believers who would see the precept sanctioned by Saint Paul circumvented: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Cor 11: 27-29).

5. In his ministry, priests have the duty to evangelize and to present the standards established by God, not to surrender to the consciences of individuals.

The judgment of an upright conscience, even if erroneous, must always be respected.

But to respect does not mean accepting as true and holy the contents of such judgments.

Priests have the duty to preach “repentance, for the forgiveness of sins […] in his name to all the nations” (Lk 24:47).

If an Islamic or Buddhist showed up to take Holy Communion, it would not be enough to respect their good faith. It is necessary to first instruct them and then baptize them. Only then can they be admitted to Holy Communion.

If doctors known to be abortionists were to come to ask for Holy Communion, it is not enough for them to say that in conscience they feel it is their duty to perform abortions. If they remain of their opinion, Holy Communion must not be given to them because they are excommunicated. 

The same thing also applies to Catholics who live in a situation objectively and notoriously not in conformity with the Gospel.

The Lord sent the Church to convert the world, to enlighten consciences, to bring all people to salvation, not to leave people “in death’s shadow” (Lk 1,79).

In this case the Church would fail in its mission.

I wish you all the best, I remember you to the Lord and bless you.

Father AngeloP.S.: excluding scandal means that they cannot receive the sacraments of the Church publicly where they are known to be irregular.

Traslated by Irene Ravegnani