P
Peter_J
Guest
This seems like a good topic for another thread, but that sin can be forgiven. It’s a question of repentance.
- Status
S
Stat_Crux
Guest
The controversy is not whether someone who has civilly remarried can be absolved, but instead whether the couple in the new, purely civil/legal, marriage must live “as brother and sister”. In other words, because at least one of the couple is Catholic and still in the original Sacramental marriage (which cannot be divorced or dissolved), in the eyes of God and the teaching of the Church the second civil marriage is not recognised as a valid marriage. So the “civilly married” couple are in fact not married as we Catholics would understand it, and are instead like any other unmarried people.
The pastoral difficulty comes when these couples continue to live together as a married couple; living together, having sex and children and presenting themselves in Mass to receive Communion. The Church has always taught that such couples are not in fact married, and that if they engage in sexual activity it is adultery (literally “sex outside of marriage”), which is against two of the Ten Commandments (to not commit adultery, and not to covet thy neighbor’s wife).
The pastoral teaching of the Church before the whole Amoris Laetitia controversy was defined by paragraph 84 of Pope St John Paul II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio. Essentially it said that a civilly remarried couple should separate to avoid the public scandal given by a couple living in a public contradiction of the commandments of God and His Church and to avoid occasions of sin for the couple involved. However, the pastoral provision in paragraph 84 stated that if the couple could not separate, e.g. they had children who were economically dependent on the civil relationship, they could remain together. However, they would have to live as brother and sister (so not have sex) in order to avoid breaking the ten commandments. They could in that case receive Communion (in private, not in Mass to avoid the public scandal). So whilst there is a pastoral provision in Familiaris Consortio, it is in line with the Church’s moral teaching and goes as far as the Church is able to compromise without breaking the substance or letter of God’s moral law.
The issue with Amoris Laetitia is some are using chapter 8 as an excuse to go one step further and state that couples no longer need to live as brother and sister, and so would be able to have sex like any validly married couple. The issue with that is that they would be objectively engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage (remember, the first Sacramental marriage still exists and can’t be dissolved, so the second marriage is automatically invalid). Also, that in the confessional their interpretation is that the couple could confess having sex outside of marriage, but that they wouldn’t need to stop committing the mortal sin (so no firm purpose of amendment) in order to receive a valid absolution and so return to a state of grace. So in short, a fundamental re-imagining of the Sacraments of Marriage, Eucharist and Confession which represents a departure from that which has been taught before. If it’s ok for a man and a woman to engage in sex outside of marriage and it not be sinful, why not other relationships? Polygamy? Homosexuality? And why limit that to simply sexual morality. Why not other “objectively sinful actions” such as abortion or murder? In the right circumstances, could one justify willfully having an abortion as not being sinful if there were sufficient economic incentives?
Whilst some see this as a pastoral provision, others see it as a fundamental change in the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics and the wider teaching on conscience and objective morality. For example, an interpretation which proposes a change in teaching to allow Communion for those who repeatedly, habitually and knowingly engage in sex outside of marriage despite knowing the Church’s teaching that it is mortally sinful would seem to suggest there are no longer any objectively sinful actions, or that the individual Catholic’s conscience alone may judge the sinfulness of an action without reference to the Church’s teaching on the subject. In other words, it looks exactly like a more subtle form of subjectivism, relativism & situation ethics which Pope St John Paul II and Benedict XVI condemned throughout their pontificates.
After you’ve finished AL (good on you for reading it), try reading Familiaris Consortio and also Veritatis Splendor (another great encyclical on the subject of morality and moral actions).
The interpretative problem with AL is that the Pope has not given a definitive teaching on how we are to interpret it, so some Bishops and Cardinals have stuck with the traditional teaching, and others are proposing a change in teaching. Also that those who seem to propose a change in teaching have not explained away the contradictions with the Church’s constant teaching until now. So we’re in a situation where in one Diocese a civilly remarried couple (e.g. in reality an unmarried couple) may have sex and, apparently, still remain in a State of Grace, and the Diocese next door where such a couple are in a state of mortal sin and need to Confess and cease sex outside of marriage in order to return to a State of Grace.
Remember, it’s not simply an academic exercise. The Church has always taught that a soul burdened by mortal sin which is not absolved through the Sacrament of Confession will not go to Heaven. It’s therefore a matter of the salvation of souls and the teaching of the Gospel with which those who defend the traditional teaching of the Church base their argument. It’s a hard teaching, but it’s God’s teaching, and has been the Church’s teaching for the last 2,000 years.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
He is the Pope for all Catholics. He was chosen by the Holy Spirit. To reject him is to reject the Spirit. People that go against the Pope are choosing to distance themselves from the Church. You’ll never be a schismatic by sticking with the Pope.
M
Milestone
Guest
I’ve heard people call Familiaris Consortio an encyclical, but isn’t it a post-synodal apostolic exhortation like Amoris Laetitia?
R
ringil
Guest
Yes, the problem lies with those that criticize the Holy Father.
J
James248
Guest
80% of Catholics at the time of the council of Nicaea were stooped in Arianism.
U
Usige
Guest
That is incorrect. The conclave may be guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Pope is not chosen through a divine mandate as it were. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spoke very clearly about this over 20 years ago when asked essentially the same question in a televised German interview. This is his response:
One only has to look to the Medici Popes to see that there have been “bad popes” that I would be surprised that the Holy Spirit would have chosen as the best for the Peterine Office. I guess if you disagree with me then you disagree with a Pope who is also one of the greatest theologians of our era… Hmmm, where would that leave you if you are disagreeing with a pope?
We can disagree with the Pope and question what he teaches, but we cannot castigate him. We do need to be obedient, but when there is clear confusion the faithful have a right to charitably ask our leaders to clarify. The problem is not when people disagree and ask for clarification, but rather in a lack of charity in how they express it.
T
TCEL
Guest
Is this more or less parallel to the number of Catholics who think contraception a matter of private conscience?
P
Pulvis
Guest
I will agree with your point on the French Revolution, but would suggest that all of these “revolutions” derived from the Anthropocentric philosophy emanating from the Enlightenment. Russia nailed the Marxist/Leninist part of the equation, but the French ran towards the progressivist goal. All are man centered, self willed, government controlled systems that seek a top down approach which eventually ends in a totalitarian state. I would also add the Mises school of economic theory in the same box.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not that I want to reject the Holy Father, or to suggest that it is okay for others to do so, but I object to the statement that “To reject him is to reject the Spirit.” Because if that were true, then the Second Vatican Council could not have said that Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc are Christians.
- Status