A good point, which most of us (including me) have ignored. I’m reminded of St. Paul when people came to him and asked “Can we eat the meat of animals that have been sacrificed to idols?” and he said, “Yes, nothing wrong with the meat…but it would possibly mislead others into thinking you were involved in idol worship. So don’t.”
With this statement, the CDF identifies 2 “parties,” one of which holds that juridical decisions must be upheld in the internal forum, and the other does not. In light of that, there is some question about your assertions like:
Apparently, the CDF does not know that this has been established, assuming the juridical forum is what establishes the objective life of the Church. If you mean something else, I cannot see what it could be.
I agree with you here. I don’t see in AL where Pope Francis suggests anything to the contrary. It is always, for him, a question of whether or not the marriage was valid in the first place. Discipline regard this issue has changed overtime, and Pope Francis suggests further changes to the discipline only.
If you mean me, I never blind myself. AL is a very beautifully written document that possess much clarity. The problem lies in those who try to make it what they want it to be rather than accepting it for what it is.
How is that a problem for you, personally? How does that affect your own spiritual journey and relationship with God? What is the actual impact on you in your life as a Catholic?
I am not claiming that the juridical forum necessarily establishes the objective status. I am saying that the juridical forum can get things wrong, and that solutions to this problem are warranted.
The testimony of a couple regarding a second marriage, loving and supportive as it may be, has no bearing whatsoever on the first marriage. By framing the issue as one of culpability rather than the objective status of marriage, the matter of the indissolubility of Marriage is circumvented entirely, along with one of the primary reasons for denying Communion to the remarried.
For what it’s worth, I am not claiming that Pope Francis is teaching error. My complaints about Amoris Laetitia are directed at it not addressing the objective nature of marriage, relying on subjective culpability for sin instead, and in it leaving the door open to interpretations that appear to go radically against Church teaching without the Pope pushing back against them.
This is where we disagree.
The problem is that there are established aspects of doctrine that appear to contradict the interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, and these interpretations have been allowed to stand without rebuttal. If these interpretations are indeed in error, and they are not corrected, then Amoris Laetitia is indeed a confusing document that doesn’t serve clarity and Charity.
I do not worry about it at all, ever, and that probably is my problem since Christ charged us “to love one another as have loved you.”
I don’t believe he’s teaching error; I believe he’s being a little lenient. He’s correct: we are at all different stages of our spiritual development. Pope Francis does not say it’s okay for divorced and remarried Catholics who have a well formed conscience to take communion, unless to refrain from seeking a petition of nullity would cause hardship for the family unit. And I am not one to go easy on Catholics who break rules.
There are at least two things you might mean by “the objective reality of marriage.” Or the “objective status” of someone receiving Communion. 1> The reality of the couple’s commitment or of God’s presence. Or 2> The Church’s assessment of that reality. The CDF distinguishes these, referring to the Divine Law and ecclesiastical law. Your claims seem to blur that distinction. (I feel like I should go refresh my memory of res, res et sacramentum, res tantum before I keep going.)
This really isn’t true. If you believe marriage is indissoluble, then the 2nd marriage is sinful and will have the characteristics and consequences of sin. If the 2nd marriage instead does not have the characteristics of sin, but of a fruitful, loving sacrament, then that has bearing on the failed 1st marriage. If it has not ended (dissolved) it must not have ever existed, even if we do not know how it failed to exist.
I am referring to the objective signs of the existence of a valid marriage, and the objective signs of adultery. If the first marriage is regarded as valid by the Church, then the second is objectively adultery. While the tribunal process is a matter of ecclesial law, the practice of denying Communion to those who are objectively living in adultery, regardless of their subjective culpability for sin, is a matter of Divine Law according to the precedent of the Church I cited previously. This precedent (covered by Canon 915) can’t be changed by ecclesial law, according to the CDF and Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts (perhaps they are in error, but this hasn’t been demonstrated).
I’m sorry, but this can’t be correct for a number of reasons. First of all, the presence or absence of Grace does not necessarily bear outward manifestations. It can, certainly, but by definition Grace is a hidden thing that is only made manifest in exceptional circumstances.
It is an interesting topic for the Church. One conflict exists between the Catholic and Orthodox practices of marriage.
Those who want to change doctrine in a way contrary AL will do so just as they were doing before AL. These people show fidelity to their own interpretations rather than fidelity to the magisterium. They twisted the Bible and church teaching to fit their ends.
There I agree with you, but he then clearly broke with the traditional doctrine of the Church in this case
All three sets of guidelines can be and should be read in an orthodox manner. All three confirm that communion should not be available to all. All three say that if the situation warrants the sacraments it should occur in private to avoid scandal.mrsdizzyd:
There I agree with you, but he then clearly broke with the traditional doctrine of the Church in this case