Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

[Mboo]

You are getting at something that I think is ultimately at the root of AL. Pope Francis is suggesting that a pastoral approach can be used to determine the validity of a previous marriage in ways a reform of canon law cannot.

Sorry but this option does not work either. The problem of the divorced-remarried communion as presented by AL does not concern the hypothetical validity of an old marriage. AL is bvery clear on this point.

And in addition there are canons of the Church who clearly say that in case of a small doubt, we must always admit that a marriage is valid, so even if AL raised the problem from this angle, it would still be in contradiction with the previous teachings of the Church.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Does the pastoral solution ultimately rely on a personal, individual decision as to the invalidity of a prior marriage?

A tribunal would certainly not be equipped to undertake the kind of discernment process Pope Francis is suggesting. I could foresee a scenario where adjustments might be made to the annulment process such that a pastor might be able to submit a report. I don’t know how workable that is.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Is it a case of “black and white thinking” to say that a prior marriage is either a valid marriage or it is not? And to say that if a prior marriage is valid then a second one cannot be? Can a marriage by subjectively valid while being objectively invalid?

Yes it is. Only God knows if a prior marriage is valid or not. For practical purposes, sometimes the Church has to make a decision, but it’s a very fallible decision. It’s like a court declaring someone guilty–yes, they’re officially “guilty,” but as we’ve seen all too often, courts make mistakes. So can the Church in these cases.

As to you last question, “Can a marriage be subjectively valid while being objectively invalid,” I would say “certainly.” This isn’t a question of physics or math. As Mulder used to say “The truth is out there.” But none of us can say what it is with any certainty. We can just offer opinions.

 

[Ghosty1981]

You are getting at something that I think is ultimately at the root of AL. Pope Francis is suggesting that a pastoral approach can be used to determine the validity of a previous marriage in ways a reform of canon law cannot.

Due to the nature and complexity of these exceptional circumstances, it would be impossible to write a law broad enough to account for the breadth and complexity of the issue without doing irreparable harm to the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage itself.

This issue existed long before Pope Francis, and was addressed to some degree by the CDF:

Since marriage has a fundamental public ecclesial character and the axiom applies that nemo iudex in propria causa (no one is judge in his own case), marital cases must be resolved in the external forum. If divorced and remarried members of the faithful believe that their prior marriage was invalid, they are thereby obligated to appeal to the competent marriage tribunal so that the question will be examined objectively and under all available juridical possibilities.

c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

Further study of this issue, along with clear elucidation of the conclusions, is warranted and has been suggested for a long time. Amoris Laetitia could have gone a long way towards avoiding Maltese-type interpretations by simply laying out this concern and the reasoning clearly in Chapter 8, but it did not.

Instead the water is muddied by raising questions about subjective culpability, which wasn’t the primary thing holding the remarried back from Communion in the first place.

 

[JimG]

Only God knows if a prior marriage is valid or not.

In that case it seems that marriage tribunals would be useless, as would be marriage vows themelves. Is the marriage valid or not? “Only God knows,” replies the tribunal judge. This is a recipe for chaos. Jesus did not seem so uncertain of validity when he prohibited divorce. His words are pretty black and white: whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

Exchanging marriage vows is not such a difficult thing. Ordinary people can do it. Ordinary Christian can understand that a) marriage is for life, and b) divorce is not permitted. An exchange of consent is all that is needed. Making such a decision and commitment may take some courage, but it is not a hard thing to understand or to do. When I married, neither of us had any doubts about whether we validly exchanged marital consent. It was a public profession.

Even if “only God knows,” the fact is that a marriage is either valid or it is not.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So you question the remedy the Pope proposes, but you don’t question the need to address the underlying problem?

Can you flesh out your objection to the use of subjective culpability in AL?

It seems to me that you can hardly undertake a process based (in part) on the internal forum without talking about subjective culpability especially considering the frequency of divorce due to spousal abandonment.

 

[TOmNossor]

Let me state that if during the Pontificate of JPII (I was a big fan) or Benedict XVI (I was a fan), I believed that the Catholic priest uniquely brought the presence of Christ into the Eucharist so that I could communion with God and His Church, Pope Francis has done nothing that would result in me abandoning this. But, I am not a Catholic and not a fan of Pope Francis so stop reading.
From the outside, I think Pope Francis has made Catholicism less appealing. Catholic Answers radio, before the Synod on the Family, seemed particularly scandalized with the idea that CHANGE would come for the divorced and remarried. My thought was that there were Cardinals who believed things about the Catholic Church that do not align with what I have learned from Catholic Answers. I now believe that Pope Francis does not believe what Catholic Answers once taught.
I have worked hard to PARSE Ch 8 and the footnote into an acceptable Catholic position that aligns largely with the Traditional Catholic Church. It is Catholic teaching that the priest cannot judge the soul of another. It is Catholic teaching that mortal sin requires grave matter, deliberate consent, and full knowledge. The best I have to justify Pope Francis vs. Pope JPII is that the DISCIPLINE (which is not irreformable) under JPII was to err on the side of mortal sin concerning the partaking of the Eucharist in the case of the divorced and remarried (who are not living as brother and sister). Under Pope Francis the DISCIPLINE has changed. Priests are to err on the side of participation in the Eucharist if the divorced and remarried believe that it is appropriate. If I were Catholic I would say this is how AL SHOULD be used and priests must remove lack of knowledge, but deliberate consent could still be a factor.
I am not Catholic and I do not think the above is strong. It is not so weak that I think private judgment should be elevated and folks should be sedavacantists or embrace SSPX groups. That still seems like too much private judgment.
Two things more. If the mortal sin of partaking of the Eucharist is corrosive to the soul like I believe the mortal sin of adultery is corrosive to the soul, AL allows (encourages?) pastors who just want to provide positive messages to not teach “full knowledge” and to contribute to the further corrosion of souls.
Second, Christ’s gospel was and should be at odds with the world. If Catholic moral teachings were true and important 75 years ago, folks who embrace the “Spirit of Vatican II” or the “Spirit of Pope Francis” because the culture changed are making a mistake. I personally do not embrace the degree of irreformable truth I think a Catholic should. I find private judgement to be problematic (important for deciding where truth is, but less important for creating a religion of ones own because your personal “truth” is at odds with your Church’s truth). In the short term teaching a gospel that offends few may fill seats, but in the long term it will not create the type of contrast with the world that Christ created and I do not believe it will hold the hearts and minds of Christ’s children.
Charity, TOm

 

[Dovekin]

Further study of this issue, along with clear elucidation of the conclusions, is warranted and has been suggested for a long time.

Further study was done at two synods without resolving the difficulties. AL sets up more study by the world’s bishops. Establishing guidelines allows experimentation and perhaps allows the clarity people have seeking.

This paragraph you quoted from the CDF goes a long way toward answering the objections to AL. It teaches nothing new, just makes more apparent that there are divisions on this issue among the world’s bishops, and that getting an answer from Rome is not an option. What AL does is shift the discussion from the juggling of legalisms to a focus on family, love and marriage.

Thanks for that quote. I have been struggling with how to introduce the difference between divine and ecclesiastical law, so I am grateful for the CDF’s succinct statement.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Can you flesh out your objection to the use of subjective culpability in AL?

Subjective culpability is, quite simply, not what has historically prevented remarried individuals from receiving Communion. In some cases culpability for mortal sin is obviously an issue, when a person knows that they are living sinfully and simply doesn’t care. The additional reason for denying the remarried Communion has always been that their objective state of life is contrary to the life of the Church and the reception of the Sacraments. A person can be innocent, without culpability for sin, and still not be properly disposed to receive the Sacraments; this is why we don’t have open Communion, for example, despite the fact that we don’t claim that Baptists are in mortal sin by not being Catholic. Someone that is divorced and remarried, when the prior marriage is presumed valid, is quite simply objectively not living in accord with the Body of Christ, and is therefore not disposed to receive the Eucharist in normal circumstances. Their soul can be as pure as undriven snow, but they are not in a position to receive just as our Baptist friends are not. This fact arises from the objective nature of the Sacraments themselves as visible, outward signs of our relationship with God; if the Church is the Body of Christ, and our lives are not in accord with the Church, then we can’t very well receive the Sacraments.

By turning only on the question of personal culpability, AL brushes aside the issue of objective relationships and the very nature of the Church and the Sacraments. A person’s personal culpability does not change their objective relationship with the Church and their spouse, and that objective relationship is absolutely a matter of consideration when administering the Sacraments. Now there may be cases where an annulment can’t be obtained for various reasons, or a Tribunal might err or be corrupt. In those cases it may be possible that a person knows objectively that their first marriage was not real even though the Tribunal said otherwise (let’s say, for example, that they knew that they lied about their intention to stay with their spouse forever, but the Tribunal still upholds the validity of the marriage). These cases might require a special course that involves private direction from a priest and possibly private reception of Communion. Heck, there might be solutions that we can’t even envision now, but to reduce the matter to personal culpability ignores very real theology and well-established norms. At the very least this objective nature of the Sacraments must be addressed before any change in practice can really be put forward, as the reason for refusing Communion to the remarried rested on this objective reality of marriage, as can be seen in the official writings on the matter from previous Pontificates.

 

[Ghosty1981]

This paragraph you quoted from the CDF goes a long way toward answering the objections to AL. It teaches nothing new, just makes more apparent that there are divisions on this issue among the world’s bishops, and that getting an answer from Rome is not an option. What AL does is shift the discussion from the juggling of legalisms to a focus on family, love and marriage.

On the contrary, AL introduces something quite new, or rather ignores something quite old. The objective nature of the Sacrament of Marriage, and the very role of the Church as the Body of Christ, is one of the prime reasons for denying the Eucharist to the remarried. Receiving Communion is not merely about the state of one’s soul, it is also about the objective relationship one holds to the Body of Christ. This has been reiterated again and again by the Church, and it’s why we recognize a difference between excommunication and being in a state of mortal sin. The Church has established that denying Communion to those that live in a manner that is objectively at odds with the Life of the Church is not merely a matter of Earthly legalism, but Divine Law.

To receive the Sacraments one must be in a proper relationship with God both internally and externally, hence the Sacraments are reserved for Catholics without prejudice to the state of Grace of non-Catholics; we don’t deny Communion to Baptists because they are sinners, we deny them Communion because they are not in the proper objective relationship with the Body of Christ. They may be in a state of Grace, they may be quite Holy, but they are not in a position to receive the Sacraments. The Church denying Communion to Baptists is not from lack of mercy nor from a belief that they are actually living in sin, and neither is the denial of Communion to the divorced and remarried.

AL does nothing to address this question as it pertains to the divorced and remarried, as it does nothing to address the manifest state of their relationship. There may be hidden factors at play, as I mentioned in my previous post, and these should be considered and deserve consideration, but AL doesn’t lay any groundwork for doing so, instead focusing on personal culpability and learning.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Thank you for your post. I agree with what you have written in pretty much every way. I fear that many people within the Church who are excited about the things Pope Francis is doing aren’t aware of how this looks to those outside the Church who might otherwise seriously consider joining.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Now there may be cases where an annulment can’t be obtained for various reasons, or a Tribunal might err or be corrupt. In those cases it may be possible that a person knows objectively that their first marriage was not real even though the Tribunal said otherwise (let’s say, for example, that they knew that they lied about their intention to stay with their spouse forever, but the Tribunal still upholds the validity of the marriage). These cases might require a special course that involves private direction from a priest and possibly private reception of Communion.

Pope Francis said this in AL complete with the private reception of the sacraments in order to avoid scandal.

Semantics question: if she objectively knows she lied wouldn’t that be subjective knowledge from the perspective of the priest who is helping her discernment? Pope Francis is speaking to the priests here.

What about those situations were things are truly subjective (for the woman and the priest)? Such as his example of the wife who was abandoned by her husband in spite of doing everything she could to save the marriage? What if due to poverty and culture she was forced to marry again for the safety and security of herself and her family?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Pope Francis said this in AL complete with the private reception of the sacraments in order to avoid scandal.

No, he does not mention private reception of Sacraments to avoid scandal. He does, however, mention in passing the case of people that are subjectively certain that their previous marriage was invalid, but does not at all focus on this when speaking of opening up Communion to the remarried.

Semantics question: if she objectively knows she lied wouldn’t that be subjective knowledge from the perspective of the priest who is helping her discernment? Pope Francis is speaking to the priests here.

It would have the same level of objectivity as a tribunal evaluating the situation, but presumably with more personal insight into the penitent’s mind and spirit.

What about those situations were things are truly subjective (for the woman and the priest)? Such as his example of the wife who was abandoned by her husband in spite of doing everything she could to save the marriage? What if due to poverty and culture she was forced to marry again for the safety and security of herself and her family?

She may or may not be culpable of sin, but does this in any way invalidate her first marriage? These are two separate questions, after all. We can soften our approach to such people, giving them a place in the Church and recognizing that they may not be guilty of sin, without violating the objective nature of the Sacraments. There is much more the Church can do without diminishing the objective nature of the Sacraments.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

No, he does not mention private reception of Sacraments to avoid scandal. He does, however, mention in passing the case of people that are subjectively certain that their previous marriage was invalid, but does not at all focus on this when speaking of opening up Communion to the remarried.

Would you disagree that Paragraphs 299 and 300 would apply? Rome, Argentine (9) and Lisbon (2D) bishops certainly interpreted it to mean it might be more appropriate for the reception of sacraments to occur in private.

The reason I asked about the semantics is because I think sometimes when Pope Francis refers to subjective he is speaking in terms of the perspective of the priest. Other times, he is referring to things that are truly subjective. Context is key. In that since, I don’t think your criticism is fair.

She may or may not be culpable of sin, but does this in any way invalidate her first marriage? These are two separate questions, after all.

Consider what Pope Francis says here:

There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.

Again, this is a truly subjective matter. Is it still wrong to talk of discerning via the internal forum (300) regarding personal or subjective culpability here?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Would you disagree that Paragraphs 299 and 300 would apply? Rome, Argentine (9) and Lisbon (2D) bishops certainly interpreted it to mean it might be more appropriate for the reception of sacraments to occur in private.

Neither 299 nor 300 speak of giving the Sacraments at all, so they certainly don’t speak about giving them in private versus public. These Conferences formed their own guidelines based on what they found to be prudent, not based on explicit instructions from AL.

The reason I asked about the semantics is because I think sometimes when Pope Francis refers to subjective he is speaking in terms of the perspective of the priest. Other times, he is referring to things that are truly subjective. Context is key. In that since, I don’t think your criticism is fair.

I am using objective in the manner that it is used in the documents I’ve cited, the documents that set the precedent for Church practice. Amoris Laetitia does not go into this subject, despite it forming the basis for denying Communion to the remarried. It doesn’t have to do with perspectives, but with facts, namely that two people are acting as a married couple despite a presumably valid marriage with a previous spouse. There may be hidden facts that make a different truth manifest to certain parties, such as the woman stating that she lied in her vows, and this would mean that the objective reality is hidden from the public.

Obviously we can all reach erroneous conclusions about objective facts, but this doesn’t change objective reality. The objective nature of the Sacraments, what they mean about a person’s relationship with the Body of Christ, is vitally important to the whole purpose of the Sacraments. We have subjective experiences of the Sacraments, but the Sacraments are themselves an objective reality that must recognized as well.

A tribunal makes its judgement based (hopefully) on manifest facts, as would a priest who chooses to give Communion to someone that says they are certain about the invalidity of their first marriage. This is a fallible judgement just like any other, but it is made based on objective reality insofar as it can be known.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

Again, this is a truly subjective matter. Is it still wrong to talk of discerning via the internal forum (300) regarding personal or subjective culpability here?

That quote from Amoris Laetitia is actually a quotation of Familiaris Consortio, where Pope John Paul II laid out the fact that different circumstances require different kinds of pastoral direction. It never meant that the validity of the first marriage is determined by the subjective feelings of the remarried. The section is worth quoting in full:

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

This passage can’t be used to support the notion that a first marriage’s validity is dependent on the later subjective feelings of the remarried, and it in fact supports the notion that our objective lifestyles can, in themselves, bar us from receiving Communion without regard to personal culpability in sin. Unfortunately this has never been touched on by Pope Francis, even if we grant that he has the authority to change this teaching (and I’m not certain that he does).

Peace and God bless!

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Neither 299 nor 300 speak of giving the Sacraments at all

But it does warn about being careful to avoid scandal. Communion in private is the logical conclusion of 299 and 300. You cannot remove this context from the subsequent paragraphs.

There may be hidden facts that make a different truth manifest to certain parties, such as the woman stating that she lied in her vows, and this would mean that the objective reality is hidden from the public.

Yes, the true objective reality can be hidden. This is precisely Pope Francis’ point.

A tribunal makes its judgement based (hopefully) on manifest facts, as would a priest who chooses to give Communion to someone that says they are certain about the invalidity of their first marriage. This is a fallible judgement just like any other, but it is made based on objective reality insofar as it can be known.

What objective fact is the priest making his decision on? That there is a person standing in front of him saying his or her marriage is invalid? I think you’ve lost sight of the purpose of all this culpability business in AL. The priest is not meant to stand in front of the couple merely judging objective reality. The priest is supposed to be leading this couple in a discernment process. He is supposed to be forming their conscience. In other words, he is subsisting in the realm of the subjective. How can he not consider mitigating circumstances and culpability as he is guiding and forming this couple?

That quote from Amoris Laetitia is actually a quotation of Familiaris Consortio, where Pope John Paul II laid out the fact that different circumstances require different kinds of pastoral direction. It never meant that the validity of the first marriage is determined by the subjective feelings of the remarried.

Yes, I am aware he is quoting another source. That’s obvious. The point is that in AL Pope Francis is trying to deepen our understanding of JPII here. The point for Pope Francis is not to challenge the objective reality of the sacraments. It is to challenge what constitutes the objective reality of the state of particular marriages. This is a question of discipline not doctrine.

If A couple is found be in a marriage that does not “objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church,” and if they recieve communion privately so as not to cause scandal, FC has not in anyway been contradicted.

Through its discipline the church decides in what instances remarriage objectively contradicts that union.

 

[Ghosty1981]

But it does warn about being careful to avoid scandal. Communion in private is the logical conclusion of 299 and 300. You cannot remove this context from the subsequent paragraphs.

Communion in private is a conclusion, not a necessary conclusion, as can be seen by the various guidelines produced by various Bishop’s conferences. There are even Bishop’s conferences that have determined that AL does not permit them to go even as far as the Lisbon and Argentine guidelines. Again, people take out of this section of AL what they bring into it; there are those in the Church that do not believe that public reception of the Sacraments would even be scandalous, as the previously cited letters of the CDF indicate.

Regardless, even if the reception of the Sacraments is to be done in private, that does not address the objective nature of the first marriage, and that objective reality is a necessary consideration for Communion.

What objective fact is the priest making his decision on? That there is a person standing in front of him saying his or her marriage is invalid?

Yes, which is precisely the objective information that a tribunal would base its decision on. Tribunals are not infallible, and neither are priests, but priests have a perspective and advantage that tribunals do not. Sometimes tribunals do not even exist in a functional capacity.

If a tribunal errs or is corrupt, which is absolutely possible, then it’s not necessary to think that a person must be absolutely bound by its decision. There is certainly room to explore other options, as the CDF stated previously. That is an avenue worth exploring, I think.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

The priest is not meant to stand in front of the couple merely judging objective reality.

Not only, but this is absolutely one of the jobs of the priest when it comes to administering the Sacraments. The Canons of the Church even say as much. Both the objective and subjective states of a person must be taken into consideration when determining their readiness for the Sacraments.

The priest is supposed to be leading this couple in a discernment process. He is supposed to be forming their conscience. In other words, he is subsisting in the realm of the subjective. How can he not consider mitigating circumstances and culpability as he is guiding and forming this couple?

The point is that personal culpability is not the only reason that the remarried are denied Communion. I am not at all saying that the subjective state of the couple should be ignored, far from it; their subjective feelings are quite important for determining how to guide them appropriately. I’m saying that the subjective mindset of the couple is not the only consideration when it comes their readiness for Communion, and it does not trump their objective status. This has been established in many ways and reiterated many times in the history of the Church, and has been stated as being a matter of Divine and not ecclesial law. If it is not a matter of Divine Law, as the CDF and Popes have explicitly stated, then this should be addressed clearly and directly.

It is to challenge what constitutes the objective reality of the state of particular marriages. This is a question of discipline not doctrine.

What constitutes the objective reality of marriage is definitely a matter of doctrine in addition to having disciplines that go along with it. The objective reality of Sacraments doesn’t change because discipline changes. If a marriage can be either valid or invalid based on the later subjective feelings of the spouses, then marriage is not indissoluble, but the indissolubility of marriage is a doctrine and not a discipline. No amount of change to the discipline of how marriages are administered can change the indissolubility of the Sacrament; how I feel about my Baptism now does not change the fact that I am Baptized, and how I feel about my marriage now can’t possibly change the fact that I am married.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In that case it seems that marriage tribunals would be useless, as would be marriage vows themelves. Is the marriage valid or not? “Only God knows,” replies the tribunal judge.

No, keep reading my post: “For practical purposes…” And read #c in Ghosty’s post right above mine where it talks about “as far as possible” about tribunals. We have to TRY to find the truth. That doesn’t mean that we ALWAYS FIND the truth.

Exchanging marriage vows is not such a difficult thing. Ordinary people can do it. Ordinary Christian can understand that a) marriage is for life, and b) divorce is not permitted.

Agreed. but the Church also says that what might APPEAR to be a marriage might NOT be a marriage, and such a “marriage” can be annulled for a variety of reasons. Happens all the time. Again, only God knows for sure.