Amoris Laetitia footnote contradicts Church’s tradition, says leading German philosopher

[pnewton]

Practices uphold the doctrines. How one lives or practices reflects their belief. Pope John Paul II is unambiguously clear that D&R not scandalize the faithful …

What he is unambiguous about is that this is a pastoral practice, and as such, may be changed when prudent. Even if you wish to disregard the carefully chosen word “practice”, surely you did not miss the introduction to his point on scandal:

“Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason…”

St. John Paul held up canon law as the best way to teach the faithful. Pope Francis is holding up that there is an ideal of what marriage is and that this is the way to teach the faithful. He held two synods on the subject. He took a great deal of time to compose this letter. We should not dismiss it. We should not choose camps, dividing ourselves between Popes, especially when the two are easily synthesized, if we read what they actual say.

 

[irenaeus1]

Of course it is doctrinal. I said it is* uniquely* addressed by the Church, in many ways. In fact, I think this document is the first time I have ever seen the concept of culpability applied to someone who is remarried, acknowledging that not all who are remarried have committed a mortal sin. Culpability is also doctrine, as is the role of the conscience. I have never seen anywhere, prior to this document where these two issues have been used in the context of a second marriage, even though they are used in every other area of moral theology.

Canon 915 states that anyone who obstinately persists in manifest, grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Culpability is not in the picture here.

 

[irenaeus1]

You seem to be missing something, and that is that the Church has also permitted divorced and remarried couples to go to Communion when they live as brother and sister - a point that Pope Francis makes (again).

Actually, the only time Pope Francis mentions living as brother and sister, he does not offer it as a remedy, but rather only to compare it to the difficulty of married couples periodically abstaining. I’m not sure that my difficulty in abstaining from sexual relations with my attractive secretary should be compared to periodic abstinence from legitimate conjugal relations.

 

[irenaeus1]

We should not choose camps, dividing ourselves between Popes, especially when the two are easily synthesized, if we read what they actual say.

Some very great minds (bishops and theologians) have had difficulty synthesizing in what you claim can be easily done.

 

[pnewton]

Canon 915 states that anyone who obstinately persists in manifest, grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Culpability is not in the picture here.

Culpability is not mentioned here. However, I note that Pope Francis is concerned about culpability. But then, he is not addressing any canon law, only saying we should not treat all people according to their category. Canon law is vitally important. However, it is not everything. It is not doctrine. It cannot address a judgment issue like culpability. It is canon law and has limitations. Failure to recognize the limitations of good laws was something Jesus constantly had to preach against.

 

[otjm]

Actually, the only time Pope Francis mentions living as brother and sister, he does not offer it as a remedy, but rather only to compare it to the difficulty of married couples periodically abstaining. I’m not sure that my difficulty in abstaining from sexual relations with my attractive secretary should be compared to periodic abstinence from legitimate conjugal relations.

adultery or fornication with your secretary is off topic.

 

[irenaeus1]

adultery or fornication with your secretary is off topic.

It is not off topic unless this all depends on the route I took to get into an adulterous relationship. Also, it is not off topic if I’ve divorced my wife and married my secretary.

 

[irenaeus1]

Culpability is not mentioned here. However, I note that Pope Francis is concerned about culpability. But then, he is not addressing any canon law, only saying we should not treat all people according to their category. Canon law is vitally important. However, it is not everything. It is not doctrine. It cannot address a judgment issue like culpability. It is canon law and has limitations. Failure to recognize the limitations of good laws was something Jesus constantly had to preach against.

Regardless of culpability, the Church cannot knowingly and willingly sanction for those in an objective state of sin to receive Holy Communion. She cannot do it for those in an adulterous relationship any more than she can do it for those in any other obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin. I cannot imagine the Church inviting, due to certain mitigating factors, those that are in incestuous relationships, those who practice abortion, those in the Italian mafia, etc. simply because we decide to play the culpability card. Certainly, there may be those who choose to receive Communion regardless of the disposition of their heart, but then that is on them – not the Church.

 

[pnewton]

… simply because we decide to play the culpability card.

Culpability is not a card. It is one of the elements of mortal sin. As to which of us is right as regard to this letter, we shall see.

I will at least not say that those who disagree with me can’t think.

 

[otjm]

It is not off topic unless this all depends on the route I took to get into an adulterous relationship. Also, it is not off topic if I’ve divorced my wife and married my secretary.

Shall we try it again? Adultery and fornication are not the topic.

The topic, according to the Pope - whom I presume is still the subject in general - is about individuals who have left the Church for whatever reason(s), are divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity, and are seeking reconciliation with the Church - which pretty much rules out the playboys. I have no recollection from his Exhortation that he is talking about someone who got a divorce and within a short period of time married someone else whom they have bedded down before or after the divorce.

And to turn it around, are you more sympathetic to the wife with 4 little children who was left behind, and got married to someone else who hadn’t, and wouldn’t, bed down his secretary - and who was not receiving enough child support and alimony to keep aroof over their heads, so married out of economic separation?

No, I didn’t think so.

Like i said, irrelevant.

Furthermore, his bedding down the secretary would have absolutely no basis, on its own, to determine if the first marriage was a nullity in the eyes of a tribunal, unless it was other evidence supporting a position on the day of the marriage which would result in a nullity decree.

 

[pnewton]

Shall we try it again? Adultery and fornication are not the topic.

I think that there are many who think it is. This is not an isolated idea. Even here, among those who seriously read the document, the wording is often that this idea of an internal forum will open some floodgate that lets everyone receive communion by talking to their priest. That is not remotely what Pope Francis said. So while you are correct it is not the topic, this perception is wide spread.

Even in my little corner of the world, my priest told me of someone who made an appointment with him to talk about her situation. He told her flatly that she need to continue to refrain, that what she wanted was not for her (it was a clear adultery, turned marriage…TWICE!). Pope Francis is proposing a process of spiritual advice, not a short cut. I pray that some will find conversion through this process to return to their spouse, or to understand, maybe for the first time what marriage really is.

 

[OraLabora]

It is not off topic unless this all depends on the route I took to get into an adulterous relationship. Also, it is not off topic if I’ve divorced my wife and married my secretary.

Amoris Laetitia is quite clear that the degree of culpability is not the same for the one abandoned a long time ago, and someone recently divorcing to “marry” someone else.

So yes, it is off topic, only in the sense that you seem to equate the situation you hypothetically leave your wife in with your own. As I said, AL makes a clear distinction between the two. As was said elsewhere, AL does not address nor give comfort to the “playboys”.

 

[irenaeus1]

Shall we try it again? Adultery and fornication are not the topic.

The confusion probably arises from AL refusing to use Jesus’ term of adultery when referring to divorce and remarriage; otherwise, one would realize adultery is indeed the topic.

Furthermore, his bedding down the secretary would have absolutely no basis, on its own, to determine if the first marriage was a nullity in the eyes of a tribunal, unless it was other evidence supporting a position on the day of the marriage which would result in a nullity decree.

But we are also discussing those who do not have a decree of nullity. Of course, if it is because they have never sought one, then part of the discernment process would be to guide them through the process.

 

[irenaeus1]

Amoris Laetitia is quite clear that the degree of culpability is not the same for the one abandoned a long time ago, and someone recently divorcing to “marry” someone else.

I agree that the degree of culpability for the divorce may be different, but remarrying and putting oneself in an adulterous situation is present regardless of the culpability in the divorce.

 

[otjm]

I think that there are many who think it is. This is not an isolated idea. Even here, among those who seriously read the document, the wording is often that this idea of an internal forum will open some floodgate that lets everyone receive communion by talking to their priest. That is not remotely what Pope Francis said. So while you are correct it is not the topic, this perception is wide spread.

I agree entirely. I have met far, far too many people who cannot separate out what the Church means by a valid marriage and what the State means. Further conflating that matter with what occurred before, during, or after the divorce causes even more confusion.

Even in my little corner of the world, my priest told me of someone who made an appointment with him to talk about her situation. He told her flatly that she need to continue to refrain, that what she wanted was not for her (it was a clear adultery, turned marriage…TWICE!). Pope Francis is proposing a process of spiritual advice, not a short cut. I pray that some will find conversion through this process to return to their spouse, or to understand, maybe for the first time what marriage really is.

Agreed.

To which I would add, that the abysmal excuse we have had for catechesis in the past has left us with a very large number of people who truly have no clue internally as to what marriage is supposed to be. And given estimates that only 15% of divorced Catholics have applied for a decree of nullity, and only about 7% have received one, it is not looking good.

 

[otjm]

I agree that the degree of culpability for the divorce may be different, but remarrying and putting oneself in an adulterous situation is present regardless of the culpability in the divorce.

And what makes you think those in the situation don’t already have some sort of clue about this? The vast majority have nothing to do with the Church now since the remarriage, and a very small minority want to reconcile.

It seems you are unhappy with how the Pope approaches the matter; he does not say "What do we do with adulterers who want to return to the Faith?’

My recollection is that Christ did not say that to the woman caught in adultery; in fact, He did not even ask her if she repented.

 

[kyrie03]

And what makes you think those in the situation don’t already have some sort of clue about this? The vast majority have nothing to do with the Church now since the remarriage, and a very small minority want to reconcile.

It seems you are unhappy with how the Pope approaches the matter; he does not say "What do we do with adulterers who want to return to the Faith?’

My recollection is that Christ did not say that to the woman caught in adultery; in fact, He did not even ask her if she repented.

I hope you are not saying that Christ doesn’t demand repentance in order to forgive our sins. And, truth be told, Christ did require the woman caught in adultery to repent. He doesn’t suggest she live in periodic continence with her lover. Here is text of John 8:1-11:

And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

Haydock footnotes quoting from the Church Fathers about this passage explain:
*“We cannot with any propriety reprehend or condemn faults in others if we ourselves be guilty of the same or other, greater faults.” (St Cyril) *

“Went out one by one confounded,” and it is in the ordinary Greek copies, convicted by their own conscience.

Hence we may see how impious is the doctrine of those who say that God is the author of sin. Christ did not say to this woman: I do not condemn thy sin; or, go and live now as thou please, I will free thee from all punishment due to any sin thou shalt commit: but he only said, “Go, and from henceforth sin no more”: thus preserving his amiable virtue of clemency, and still not encouraging vice." (St Augustine)

No one (I trust) is condemning anyone….only pointing out that the Church has always required that sinners go and sin no more. The sacrament of confession is available for those in adulterous situations who wish to reconcile with the Church. Repentance was always a requirement. The Exhortation isn’t clear that it is STILL a requirement. Do you think it is?

 

[otjm]

I hope you are not saying that Christ doesn’t demand repentance in order to forgive our sins.

Of course not.

No one (I trust) is condemning anyone….only pointing out that the Church has always required that sinners go and sin no more. The sacrament of confession is available for those in adulterous situations who wish to reconcile with the Church. Repentance was always a requirement. The Exhortation isn’t clear that it is STILL a requirement. Do you think it is?

The Exhortation is not a teaching document; you want it to be, but that is not going to change it.

I have always followed the Magisterium of the Church.

And this is not a Magisterial document.

 

[kyrie03]

The Exhortation is not a teaching document; you want it to be, but that is not going to change it.

I have always followed the Magisterium of the Church.

And this is not a Magisterial document.

Papal teaching documents, encyclicals, apostolic letters, apostolic exhortations, and “motu proprio” documents expound or explain existing law.

Although the Exhortation is labeled as “pastoral” instead of “doctrinal” it still has the power to change practices in the Church. Just look at how the “pastoral” Vatican II changed the landscape of the Church. If one from the 1920s were transported into a modern Church of today, I dare say, he/she wouldn’t recognize or be familiar with the building structure, orientation of priest facing people, demeanor of faithful, or even some of the liturgical prayers. Same cannot be said for one transported in time who attends Eastern rite Liturgy. I don’t mean to derail topic- just point out that a pastoral document can dramatically change things…which is what the Exhortation seems to allow.

I disagree that it is not Magisterial- it comes from the Magisterium and is a document. Are you saying one need not follow it? I don’t think that’s how majority of pastors will respond. The highest authority on earth has just addressed a letter to the faithful and expounded on how pastors should relate to the faithful…in marriage, in confession, in Eucharist. Regardless of how you label it, some practices that directly affect doctrine (practices regarding distribution of Sacraments) are vulnerable to change.

It doesn’t really matter what label it is called…the fact is that actions form and modify beliefs.

 

[kyrie03]

My recollection is that Christ did not say that to the woman caught in adultery; in fact, He did not even ask her if she repented.

what do you mean by this? Is it imperative that someone confess and repent of relations after civil remarriage with no annulment before receiving the Eucharist? Do you understand this to be established doctrine or do you find it open to change in practice as Cardinal Kasper does?