Amoris Laetitia

[TaylorDonBarret]

A staple in Catholic moral theology is the fact that objective moral truth is limited by subjective culpability (there are three requirements for mortal sin, and only one is “grave matter”). Just because a person is divorced and remarried does not mean they are necessarily deprived of sanctifying grace. Of course, the conservative will say, “as long as they are living as brother and sister.” No, that is not the only possibility. There are circumstances in which a divorced and remarried person could be living as husband and wife, and yet remain in a state of sanctifying grace. One example may be a woman who was beaten by her husband, who then divorced and cheated on her. After years of praying for her husband and remaining faithful to him – even though he beat her and then cheated on her and divorced her – she eventually met a new man, a good man, who treats her right. In her weakness she remarries and lives with the man as wife. This is not ideal, but Jesus understands her situation, and this limits her culpability. And it is the existence of such cases that makes the liberal interpretation of Amoris Laetitia understandable.

Now, that being said, I fully understand the dangers of allowing for such subjectivity to enter into official Church teaching, and I whole heartedly want to resist falling down the slippery slope it surely leads us to. Admitting for “discernment” in such cases would seemingly open the door to “discernment” in every single circumstance. It is clear where this would lead – pure moral relativism, with only human emotion as the judge of what is and isn’t permissible behavior for those who desire admission to the Sacraments. Obviously, this cannot be allowed to happen. And for this reason, the conservative position on this issue is understandable as well. We need to be very clear about the truth.

To wrap up this post, I think if conservatives would be willing to admit the existence of divorced and remarried Catholics who nonetheless remain in a state of grace, I think there would be more willingness on the side of liberals to agree that Amoris Laetitia should be interpreted in a more conservative manner. Because, for at least me personally, a large part of the sentiment behind the liberal position is this desire to affirm the love and mercy to those who are in “irregular” circumstances. We know about people in our lives who are in situations like the woman described above, who was beaten and cheated on, and we have a deep-seated conviction that they are indeed growing in grace and love for God. If the conservatives would be willing to admit these people exist, then we may be more willing to admit that, although these people have grace, they still should not be allowed the Sacraments, because of the very dangerous slippery slope into moral relativism that such a concession would run the risk of pushing us into.

 

[Stephen_says]

Being a layman it is easy for us to wax thological about these things. I agree with you 100%, actually, well, maybe more like 98% but I don’t feel like breaking down exactly where we fall apart

The question is, I guess, do you really think EVERY “Conservative” and EVERY “Liberal” would do as you say and meet in the middle?

In my POV, “conservatives” and “liberals” are very bad at conceding.

 

[AugustTherese]

Now, that being said, I fully understand the dangers of allowing for such subjectivity to enter into official Church teaching, and I whole heartedly want to resist falling down the slippery slope it surely leads us to. Admitting for “discernment” in such cases would seemingly open the door to “discernment” in every single circumstance. It is clear where this would lead – pure moral relativism, with only human emotion as the judge of what is and isn’t permissible behavior for those who desire admission to the Sacraments. Obviously, this cannot be allowed to happen. And for this reason, the conservative position on this issue is understandable as well. We need to be very clear about the truth.

I am beyond words at the pure honesty and fairness of this post. It seems, by reading this post, that you have read Amoris Laetitia and have judged for yourself the integrity of this Apostolic Exhortation and have been open to both sides of interpretation in view of the Dubia, among other things; instead of impetuously rushing to what others have said about it.

What I quoted from your post seems to be a legitimate concern. However, “irregular” circumstances or the “subjectivity” of “discernment” will never usurp the the objectivity of grave sin and how the Church properly defines it. If specific individuals want to wittingly exploit individual ignorance and lack of culpability to justify living in grave sin, that is their affair, and not the Church’s. Even if someone were to misunderstand Amoris Laetitia, they are still endowed with the faculties of intellect, will, and reason forming a conscience to discern good from evil, regardless of how hardened their heart is. Unless pastored and/or consulted, every single Catholic is required to examine themselves individually and discern whether or not they are worthy for Communion, Reconciliation etc. Even if someone persistently engages publicly in grave, manifest sin, (assuming lack of personal culpability) they are still afforded their Baptismal right of receiving communion until otherwise discovered by a clergy that they are deliberately obstinate. Obstinate, meaning they have full knowledge and awareness of their grave sin but are still obstinate in repenting with true contrition, and deliberate, meaning with full consent.

So, whether or not divorced and remarried persons decide that after reading Amoris Laetitia they decide to go to Communion in the state of mortal sin, they should resort to their conscience, examine themselves, and discuss these “irregular” circumstances with their local parish priest.