Amoris Laetitia apologists rely on kids from second marriages?

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Is this not a choice between sin and suffering? All of these imagined situations are based on the assumption that there should be a limit to how much difficulty we should have to endure, that if things are really bad we may freely choose to sin in order to make things better. That in fact we may do evil if enough good comes of it. Am I missing something here?

Ender

And what about grace? I think that’s what’s missing. Graces makes it possible for us to overcome all difficulties and suffering.

 

[gardenswithkids]

From the text: Because of an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351

Foornote 351: In certain cases, 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.” (references removed)

Thank you for trying to answer my question, but as I read it, that quote and footnote from AL doesn’t inherently conflict with previous Church teachings. It was already in Church teachings that people can commit serious sin without bearing full culpability. Mortal sin requires three conditions, not only grave matter but also knowledge and consent.

As to the footnote, Pope Francis has stated that he doesn’t even remember the footnote. Does a footnote he can’t even remember qualify as a change to Church teachings? It’s a footnote. If the document truly changed the teachings, wouldn’t it have been expressed in a more obvious place than in a footnote? Plus it says “certain cases” without defining specifically what those “certain cases” are, so why assume that those “certain cases” would fall outside of the previous teachings?

Here’s an article I turned up that addressed the footnote you sited that offers a way to interpret it so that it does not conflict with established Church teachings. From that article:

While he acknowledges (along with Gaudium et Spes 51) the concern of some that a lack of sexual intimacy will lead to unfaithfulness, the pope also tells us that celibacy is what “the Church offers” to those in irregular unions who cannot live apart, and that “many” such couples “know and accept” it. Because he mentions this requirement here, it must necessarily be one of the criteria for the “certain cases” the pope has in mind in footnote 351, when the Eucharist may be given. Footnote 351 cannot be read in isolation, either from the text that precedes it or what the pope says elsewhere in Amoris. - See more at: aleteia.org/2016/04/14/amoris-laetitia-confused-by-footnote-351-a-look-at-329-can-help/2/#sthash.4UDvHCuE.dpuf

aleteia.org/2016/04/14/amoris-laetitia-confused-by-footnote-351-a-look-at-329-can-help/ (Warning, that site uses cookies, but it’s a good article if you want to see a way to interpret AL in a way that aligns with previous Church teachings.)

 

[cominghome1966]

Can you explain how?

When I read it, I see a ton of orthodoxy. I mean, really, the document oozes orthodoxy when it comes to its explicit defenses of marriage and the family. It links the family to the Trinity nine times (I think. It’s been a while since I looked), plus it links a child’s rights to know and be raised by his own married parents. Logically, this in turn links back to the Trinity. As just one example:

AL 29 The word of God tells us that the family is entrusted to a man, a woman and their children, so that they may become a communion of persons in the image of the union of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

There is no way to redefine the family when we put in the center of our argument the child’s right (and need) to be raised by both married parents. AL does this over and over. Marriage and the family have not been redefined in any way by AL.

But the issue is not so much the redefinition of marriage and the family, as the discipline of allowing those who are remarried to the Eucharist (by “remarried,” I mean “without a prior annulment”).

So like others, I see passages in AL that are not clear. However, that lack of clarity doesn’t mean it must be interpreted as a rupture with tradition. For example, footnote 351 simply mentions “sacraments.” It doesn’t specify which. This means that the Eucharist can be excluded from legitimate interpretations.

Now, I know that Pope Francis approved of some Argentine’s bishops use of AL, where they stated that the Eucharist can be appropriate in some such cases.

But the Pope made those remarks privately. His private remarks do not serve as the definitive interpretation of AL. This is because the Pope is not protected from error when making private remarks. So ultimately, it does not matter what he said privately, even about a document he issued himself.

This essay by Dr. Jeff Mirus really helped me understand all that I’m relaying to you here. He gets the credit for helping me understand this point. catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1415

As Dr. Mirus says,

We may find that, in the future, the Magisterium will side with this pope’s critics.

All I am saying is that, for those who oppose this change in discipline, the related doctrinal questions remain unsettled. Future popes and future generations of Catholics will make of Amoris Laetitia, not what Pope Francis says he was trying to do, but only what the text itself demands—which does not include admission to Communion for those who are divorced and remarried, without benefit of annulment.

I am very confident that it will work out exactly this way.

Having said all that, I am not sure I addressed your question. But this is what makes sense to me. Let me know how I did.

 

[cominghome1966]

IMHO, AL does not address the first marriage at all. This is true not only for the children of the first marriage but also the spouse, who in many cases was the “innocent” spouse in a divorce.

I disagree with this. I think it does address the first marriage. I see this in two ways:

1. It implicitly addresses the presumptively valid marriage.
2. It addresses the children born into those marriages, to be raised in a family that reflects the Trinity; that is, their first family of their married mother and father.

I have seen this happen several times. One spouse (usually the husband) has an affair and decides to leave his wife and kids for a younger model. He eventually gets married to the new “spouse” and starts a new family. The first wife usually has primary day-to-day responsibility for the kids and often does not remarry. Under the provisions being proposed by AL, the original (“innocent” in Church terminology) spouse is still prohibited from entering into a valid marriage since the original sacramental bond is still intact. But the other partner and his/her new spouse are welcomed into the Sacraments as if the first marriage, along with the spouse and kids from that marriage, never happened.

Yes, I am personally aware of that exact kind of situation. The second marriage was founded upon an injustice.

If the offending spouse is readmitted to the Sacraments, I feel the Church has a grave obligation to extend the same mercies to the innocent spouse and to allow her (or him) to remarry without it being considered a sin.

That is an interesting question that I had not considered. This is the logic of what you are saying: if the perpetrator-spouse (along with the new spouse) is readmitted to the Eucharist, then the innocent spouse becomes free to marry without an annulment.

Hmm. I wonder what the canonists have to say about that.

 

[goout]

Thank you for trying to answer my question, but as I read it, that quote and footnote from AL doesn’t inherently conflict with previous Church teachings. It was already in Church teachings that people can commit serious sin without bearing full culpability. Mortal sin requires three conditions, not only grave matter but also knowledge and consent.

There is nothing contrary to orthodoxy in AL.
The problem is the interpretations which are contrary to orthodoxy. These interpretations lean to a desire for moral relativism under the guise of mercy. In a word these interpretations require presumption.
“I want God’s mercy with no proper response required…no serious change of heart and behavior, cause God will forgive me in any and all cases”.

Certainly a priest can give absolution, good pastoral advice, and, AND, expect the penitent to reform his/her life.
But contrary interpretations would like to use the Pope for contrary opinions which excuse presumption.

Why can’t readers simply assume the Pope knows doctrine better than the average reader.
Why should the Pope speak as if the reader is ignorant of constant Church teaching?
Do we really need to be spoon fed?
Did JP2 talk down to the reader? No. Why should Francis?
(well, I guess one unfortunate reason is that people fill in the gaps with erroneous opinions…requiring cardinals to ask for clarification)
It’s sad.

 

[goout]

AL is being used as a way to encourage parents to not do that to kids born into second marriages. These parents can remain together and even be sexual with each other, for the kids’ sake.

I’m not sure this is the case.
Where do you read it this way?

Immoral behavior is never excused and it won’t benefit children.
My wife and I need a drink, for the welfare of our children, it takes the anxiety off the day. Otherwise we will be very ornery and inhospitable. Just one (or two maybe, depending on how bad the urge is…nothing that hurts anyone else. We are just not ready for discipline. And I can go to confession so…discipline solved.)

The welfare of children does not depend on the sexual activity of the parents. It’s one of the goods of the family, obviously, but we are all called to chastity in whatever form that may take and for the time it will take.

 

[cominghome1966]

I’m not sure this is the case. Where do you read it this way?

I don’t read AL that way. But apparently others do.

 

[goout]

I don’t read AL that way. But apparently others do.

Got it. Sorry.
Anyone else?

I really think that the problems with AL are with readers who do not know Church doctrine well, or do know it and wish to change it.
And on the other side, those who are anxious about the durability of the Church.

It ain’t the Pope. It’s the readers. The readers get anxious and make a mess for the pastors. Cardinals have to ask for clarification.
On it goes.

 

[Ender]

This is the logic of what you are saying: if the perpetrator-spouse (along with the new spouse) is readmitted to the Eucharist, then the innocent spouse becomes free to marry without an annulment.

Consider just the innocent spouse for a moment. What are the criteria for (assume) her to receive? Does it have anything to do with guilt for ending the marriage…or is it tied solely to the validity of the first (and in her case, only) marriage? The thing is, if she qualifies to receive communion, so does he, regardless of how miserably he behaved toward her, because eligibility to receive depends on the same thing for both of them: was their marriage valid? I really don’t think these examples recognize the situation. They seem to be seeking ways to get around the doctrines.

Ender

 

[cominghome1966]

Consider just the innocent spouse for a moment. What are the criteria for (assume) her to receive? Does it have anything to do with guilt for ending the marriage…or is it tied solely to the validity of the first (and in her case, only) marriage? The thing is, if she qualifies to receive communion, so does he, regardless of how miserably he behaved toward her, because eligibility to receive depends on the same thing for both of them: was their marriage valid? I really don’t think these examples recognize the situation. They seem to be seeking ways to get around the doctrines.

Ender

From what I understand, the divorce is not what disqualifies them from receiving communion. It is the remarriage(s) that disqualifies them, remarriages where they are not living as brother and sister.

In other words, if they are sexually active in the remarriage, this is what disqualifies them from receiving communion.

 

[cominghome1966]

I really think that the problems with AL are with readers who do not know Church doctrine well, or do know it and wish to change it. And on the other side, those who are anxious about the durability of the Church.

Yes, this is how it looks to me as well, largely.

 

[Ender]

From what I understand, the divorce is not what disqualifies them from receiving communion. It is the remarriage(s) that disqualifies them, remarriages where they are not living as brother and sister.

In other words, if they are sexually active in the remarriage, this is what disqualifies them from receiving communion.

Yes, that’s how I understand it as well. Guilt or innocence for the divorce is irrelevant, and both would be equally guilty or equally innocent if they remarry depending on whether the first marriage was valid.

This, however, is how we understood things in the past. It isn’t at all clear that this is how we are supposed to understand things now. The debate now revolves around the question of whether there are some cases where undefined circumstances might excuse sexual activity.

Ender

 

[cominghome1966]

I think I struck a nerve: somebody rated this thread one star!

 

[gardenswithkids]

I think I struck a nerve: somebody rated this thread one star!

I saw that too, but since I don’t even know how to rate threads, I just assume that low ratings, (high ratings, any ratings) are because someone inadvertently struck the wrong key. :manvspc:

 

[cominghome1966]

OK so this is what I’m talking about. Father Antonio Spadaro SJ:

“In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option [of living in continence] may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.”

According to Census.gov, about 36% of remarriages have children from a prior marriage, and only 8% of remarriages have only their own biological children to raise (no prior-marriage children).

It is astonishing that Fr. Sparado ignores first-marriage-children in making this argument. While just over 50% of remarriages have no children, his hypothetical does not accurately represent the majority of remarriages that do have children.

My question remains: why do children from the second marriage get preferential treatment when it comes to interpreting AL?

 

[Ender]

Father Antonio Spadaro SJ:
“In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option [of living in continence] may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.”

I don’t understand his position. What has the option of living in continence to do with obtaining a declaration of nullity? If you can obtain such a declaration then continence is not required, but for all those who cannot obtain one then continence is an obligation. What does it mean that continence is not practicable? What limitations are there that “attenuate responsibility and guilt”? What is imagined that is a worse error than adultery? As for harm to the children of the new union, this goes back to the option I mentioned before: choose evil or choose suffering. What are the conditions that justify choosing evil?

I find it disturbing that this topic is considered in the abstract where the talk is of “circumstances”, “possibilities”, “limitations”, and what “may not be”. Until there is a concrete, specific example of circumstances that “attenuate responsibility and guilt” then I think it is fair to assume that the failure to define such a case is tacit acknowledgement that such a case does not exist.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

It is astonishing that Fr. Sparado ignores first-marriage-children in making this argument.

I think there is a basic logic error that the first post, and this post, make. Addressing some circumstances does **not **ignore anything. It simply addresses some circumstances. Neither to the Pope, nor Fr. Sparado, does the question need to be asked, “What about me,” but rather to one’s own pastor. There are so many possible situations, that the Pope decided not to make a check list, a flow chart, or any means of categorizing all possible scenarios.

As to the children from the first marriage, I do not see where they have any bearing on second marriage stability, though again, this is something best taken up with one’s own pastor. In fact, in some circumstances, the presence of children from a previous marriage might make separation more preferred.

But I am not an “apologist” for the Pope. He needs no apologist.

 

[cominghome1966]

I think there is a basic logic error that the first post, and this post, make. Addressing some circumstances does not ignore anything. It simply addresses some circumstances. Neither to the Pope, nor Fr. Sparado, does the question need to be asked, “What about me,” but rather to one’s own pastor. There are so many possible situations, that the Pope decided not to make a check list, a flow chart, or any means of categorizing all possible scenarios.

Given most second marriages that have children, bring those children with them from first marriages, it does seem like that situation is being glossed over. Plus I know that people won’t draw the distinction between the two situations.

I don’t think it is out of line to wonder why the majority situation is being ignored, while the minority situation is being used as an example. Especially given that adults who have not lived that way as children might think that the situations are interchangable, that the situations can be thought of in the same way.

I really just want to call attention to the fact that kids of divorce are profoundly ignored by the Church, and Fr. Sparado is one more example of how it plays out. His scenario is a minority scenario, but people won’t understand that unless people like me call attention to it. And it should not be confused with the majority scenario, yet I know it will be.

To my knowledge, there is currently precisely nothing that the Church does specifically for the children of divorce, even though their risk factors are well documented, including losing interest in religion and feeling a lack of compassion from their churches.

As to the children from the first marriage, I do not see where they have any bearing on second marriage stability…

Actually, they do have quite a bearing on the stability of second marriages, a negative one. It is well known that second marriages fail at higher rates than first marriages. The presence of children from the prior marriage is often cited as one reason.

In fact, in some circumstances, the presence of children from a previous marriage might make separation more preferred.

I don’t follow you here.

 

[pnewton]

Given most second marriages that have children, bring those children with them from first marriages, it does seem like that situation is being glossed over. Plus I know that people won’t draw the distinction between the two situations. .

I do not know what people you speak of. The only one that will be asked to make a distinction under Amoris Laetitia would be the local priest. I do not believe many priests, if any, will be ignorant of this distinction.

Minority situations are being addressed as they should. The reason for some recourse to the internal forum is by its very nature a rarer case, and thus a minority situation. Prior to an annulment, or without an annulment, separation, or refraining from Communion, is still the normative answer for one in a second marriage, children or no.

I don’t follow you here.

I could see a case where the children from the previous marriage might benefit from the separation of the parties in the second marriage, especially if the second marriage stemmed from an affair, there was a lot of resentment and disregard from the step-mom, and the second marriage was mostly about sex and playing house.

The idea of exploration in the internal forum is about spiritual direction, not just receiving communion. Everything doctrinal permissible should be explored as an option. But then what do I know. I am really premature, as we all are. This hasn’t been implemented fully yet.

 

[Ender]

The reason for some recourse to the internal forum is by its very nature a rarer case, and thus a minority situation.

I cannot conceive of such a case, yet they are spoken of as if they clearly exist. Define any conditions you like that justifies continued sexual relations for a person in a second marriage who’s first marriage has not been declared invalid.

Ender