Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

[Mboo]

can you give me this quote?

 

[rcwitness]

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).

Secondly, the couple in a second marriage needn’t be deprived of Sanctifying Grace at all if they lack culpability for their actions. They may very well be in a state of Grace even while objectively living in a sinful manner. This is explicitly addressed in my previous posts, and the rule (grounded in Divine Law and said to be irreformable) has always been that these people are to be denied Communion because of the objective nature of the Sacraments. In certain circumstances such people have been allowed to receive the Sacraments privately if they live in continence, and there remains the possibility that a tribunal erred in its judgement and that the first marriage was in fact invalid, but barring these exceptions their first marriage is presumed valid and their second marriage is objectively disordered.

I recommend reading this document. It is brief and it discusses the importance of both the objective and subjective aspects of sin and worthiness of Communion.

This all speaks in a way I understand. The document too, is good.

The manner which AL attempts to casually introduce a change and waived interpretations which touch on divine law and doctrine warrant more discussion. But when Pope Francis tongue is tied, it gives further cause to see it as a weak exhortation that is eventually replaced with a more sound message.

 

[Dovekin]

If the first marriage is regarded as valid by the Church, then the second is objectively adultery

As a matter of ecclesiastical law, yes. That does not mean it is objectively adultery as a matter of divine law, and that is a real problem for the Church.

The document you cited is from the Pontifical Council For Legislative Texts, a clue that it is about ecclesiastical law. Its only mention of divine law is connection with the rule that a person in manifest sin cannot receive Communion. No one is disputing that afaik.

The rest of the document addresses apparently sinful situations, stating that “the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion:” We have been discussing situations where “publicly unworthy” comes about through an error by the Church. A mistake in the juridic process “constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion” so it seems unjust to have the victin of that mistake bear the burden by being excluded from communion.

This is all about ecclesiastical law. God knows if a person is worthy, while we need the presumption of validity, public knowledge, etc. it can be reasonable to exclude people for public unworthiness, but at this point in time ir is a problem. More people are scandalized by the exclusion than by a merciful inclusion. The ecclesiastical law needs to better reflect the divine law. Otherwise we will go on calling a sacrament a mortal sin.

 

[rcwitness]

This is all about ecclesiastical law. God knows if a person is worthy, while we need the presumption of validity, public knowledge, etc. it can be reasonable to exclude people for public unworthiness, but at this point in time ir is a problem. More people are scandalized by the exclusion than by a merciful inclusion. The ecclesiastical law needs to better reflect the divine law. Otherwise we will go on calling a sacrament a mortal sin.

This is about guiding couples in love and truth, according to the Catholic faith. Therefore, the pastor is bound to reveal, to the couple who seeks God, the trespass of their current relationship.

Whether the couple is actually being sincere or not is sometimes evident, but never absolutely known. By receiving a good confession to live in continence, with contrition in the Sacrament, one is demonstrating to accept the grace completed in Eucharist participation.

Yet, there could be mistakes and not a true struggle to live in continence. That is what we may not know the interior convictions of their hearts. Only God knows.

So the Church’s practice is to assume their confession is sincere, just like all confessions in Reconciliation. But we are not to encourage or condone reception of Communion to those invalid couples without Reconciliation.

Some believe they can interpret AL to harmonize this, and interpretations have been supported which contradict this.

AL is a stale mate for now.

 

[Ghosty1981]

By giving his assent to Argentina, Rome, and Lisbon, Pope Francis has provided clarity. Will people listen? Overtime, I expect the CDF will correct where correction is needed. We all know the CDF moves slowly. We also know it takes decades for any given teaching to be fully appreciated with the church.

The Pope also gave his approval to the Maltese guidelines.

These are not individuals with private interpretations, they are Bishops’ Conferences with teaching authority. The Pope’s primary function is to protect the Faith and ensure clarity and consistency of teaching, everything else is gravy. If a Pope writes something that can be used to support both orthodox and heterodox understandings, and does not work against the heterodox interpretations, then I believe we have a problem.

It is not enough to say “this can be read in an orthodox manner” when the heterodox readings are being put forth by Bishops and allowed to stand. Correcting those Bishops is literally the job of the Pope.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The Pope also gave his approval to the Maltese guidelines.

Do you have a link? The only thing I have seen is something speculative. No one has published a letter or anything along those lines.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The document you cited is from the Pontifical Council For Legislative Texts, a clue that it is about ecclesiastical law. Its only mention of divine law is connection with the rule that a person in manifest sin cannot receive Communion. No one is disputing that afaik.

You are disputing it if you believe that a couple can receive Communion because they believe that their first marriages “fell apart” and therefore weren’t valid. Subsequent difficulties and abandonment do not and can not annul a marriage. The subjective beauty of a second marriage does not render this second marriage valid.

Now, it is possible that a tribunal makes an error in its judgement, or that it is corrupt. In such a circumstance ecclesial law could certainly be amended to give priests or Bishops the authority to judge the case and proceed with administering the Sacraments. This hasn’t been broached by Amoris Laetitia nor the Bishops’ guidelines, however, instead focusing on subjective culpability for sin as an avenue for administering the Sacraments.

 

[Ghosty1981]

https://translate.google.com/transl...ibghat-jirringrazzja-lill-arcisqof&edit-text=

Had to use Google translate as the website is written in Maltese.

It is worth noting that the Argentine guidelines also rest on the matter of subjective culpability, and do not address the objective character of sin and the Sacraments that I’ve been talking about. They don’t go to the extremes of the Malta guidelines, but they fail to address the actual barriers to Communion that have been upheld by the Church up until the time of Pope Francis.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The Orthodox practice is certainly interesting. Personally, I find the Catholic understanding and practice on the issue more compelling and rooted in unbroken tradition despite my Eastern leanings. The Orthodox approach is certainly worth considering, however, if only as a possible model for Apostolic Churches navigating a similar sticky issue.

 

[Dovekin]

You are disputing it if you believe that …

I am disputing that the couple is living in “manifest sin” if they have remarried. The presumption for the first marriage may make it appear to be a sin, but that is not enough to make it a manifest sin. The objective character of marriage is clearly the aim of most 2nd marriages, complicating the attempt to call the relationship “manifest sin.”

 

[Ghosty1981]

I am disputing that the couple is living in “manifest sin” if they have remarried. The presumption for the first marriage may make it appear to be a sin, but that is not enough to make it a manifest sin.

Having a second marriage when the first marriage is valid is the very definition of adultery, and is manifest grave sin. That is made clear in the document I cited. There is no way to square that circle.

If I am married, I can’t marry a second time. Since marriage is indissoluble, the first marriage must be determined to be invalid before the second marriage can even be considered, and if the first marriage is not invalid then there is no second marriage. This is considered a matter of Divine Law, not ecclesial law. How we go about determining the invalidity of the first marriage is a matter of ecclesial law, but subjective culpability for sin is not a factor in validity.

So long as the first marriage is objectively valid, the second marriage is objectively sinful, regardless of personal culpability, and those living in objectively sinful ways are barred from Communion by Divine Law.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

That article does not pass muster. It says a cardinal speaking on behalf of pope Francis thanked them for the guidelines (offers no evidence for this). Then it immediately starts quote an interview with a different Cardinal who is giving his personal opinions rather than those of the pope.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If you doubt that the Pope received the guidelines and thanked the Bishops, fine. I don’t doubt it for a moment because no one in the Vatican has said a thing against the Maltese interpretation. I won’t try to convince you that the Maltese guidelines are accepted, but I will point out that they have in no way been corrected as of yet.

Leaving the Maltese interpretation aside, we still have the fact that the Argentine guidelines (and Amoris Laetitia itself) do not account for the objective nature of the Sacrament of Marriage and the prohibition against the reception of Communion by those who objectively live contrary to Divine Law. Amoris Laetitia is not confusing in this regard, it is simply incomplete, and this incompleteness leads to confusion about the status of the Sacraments.