Amoris Laetitia's exception of the exception - possible explanations?

[Tantum_ergo]

Easy. The pope made the determination. Even under Amoris Laetitia if the Pope, or even a priest in the internal forum understands that communion in a situation would be contrary to doctrine and the good of the soul, it is to be denied still.

But if you are going to say the time does not matter, then the Mosaic law that permitted divorce, and was also given by God, still needs to be explained. Why did God permit an exception for the hard hear then? Furthermore, the communion between God and David, and his subsequent forgiveness after a sin with Bathsheba, while still keeping her as wife, needs to fit with the same eternal truth that King Henry does.

He made it THEN. Would he (the Pope) have made it if AL was in place? You’re missing the question.

And again, it is not that the time does not matter, it is the ‘matter’ that matters.

If God did permit divorce for ‘hardness of heart’, that was an exception to a truth that, in the fullness of the law being fulfilled (Christ) was now to be reinstituted for good. Since we aren’t supposed to question the Pope’s decisions, I’m sure no one would question God’s decision, right? Especially when God Himself --Jesus–announces that the exception is no longer in force, right?

AL would be like reinstituting the exception, after the truth had been reinstituted. See the difference?

As for God’s forgiving David, David killed Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband. Once the murder had been repented, and forgiven, Bathsheba was as a widow free to marry. Just as, in an irregular second marriage, if the spouse from the first marriage dies, then the spouse in the second marriage becomes free to marry.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ask Ender.

Yes there shouldn’t be a need for this thread.
But in the remote chance that those who cannot accept FI’s new pastoral directives may do so if theological openings are demonstrated then this compassion is worth effecting.

For people like Ender who find it a bitter task to follow FI when he cannot personally understand.

Psych 101 is hardly needed to understand that sometimes a religio/cultural shift is so great that no satisfactory explanation is possible for some world views because it is a change in values that is needed…not intellectual clarity.

Jesus wants some of these impure adulterers to come to Communion.
This is ultimately the value that is changing today…and some of our older brother fellow Catholics just cannot accept this. So no words will ever suffice

Wait, what? “Jesus wants some of these impure adulturers to come to communion?”

Jesus wants? Just who is speaking for Jesus here? I simply do not see, even in AL, a claim that “Jesus wants some of these impure adulturers to come to communion.”

Honey chile, we have heard from time immemorial that 'the horse has bolted, the Church has changed, listen". . .

Hey, those Arians ruled the world, you know? Get with the program, God wants us to go with that, all the bishops say it, even the Pope isn’t saying no. . .

Except wait, hold on. . .Are we Arian?

All those who claimed that "Jesus wants us to be Arians now’ may have been sincere, but they were wrong.

I don’t mean this as a personal slur, but anytime I see or hear, "Jesus wants’ unless it is then followed by a paragraph from the catechism or something that is accepted doctrine, I think, "No, ‘poster’ wants, not Jesus wants’. . .

 

[Rau]

…You are slowly getting there…even if the insight is currently exceeding your personal credibility limits. But given FI has already done this re his pastoral directives why would you expect the possible theological underpinnings be easier to accept?

I was not aware I was seeking to go anywhere, and I am relieved to be able to say I have no attachment to the Church processes in this area - be it the one that has existed heretofore, or the varied one incorporated in AL.

While you present all those not on-board with your opinion as “struggling to understand” (which presumably includes 4 cardinals ), the reality (at least as I see it) is that AL lacks the content required to distinguish those scenarios requiring a different rule from those for which the pre-existing rules are fitting and to justify that different rule theologically. You’ve alluded to as much yourself - suggesting we need to search for possible theological underpinnings. This thread has speculated on what this point in AL rests on because such content is not included in the document. There seem to be 3 speculative ideas put forward by various persons in this thread:

1. Reduced culpability for the on-going objectively sinful behaviour in the 2nd marriage (eg. post #2). [Personally - I think that is the line Francis leans to.]
2. A new/alternative means to discern validity of the first marriage, involving the PP and accompaniment. [Post #12 speculated on this.]
3. PODE theory - whereby the first marriage is held to be valid, but all the evil in the 2nd marriage [including entry into it?] is viewed as indirect - a double effect. You seem most persuaded by this idea (and indeed have invoked the idea previously to speculate how a married couple may be only “indirect” contracepting if they choose to use ABC to avoid the risk of Zika - and presumably any other similarly serious medical risk).

I don’t reject out of hand any of these 3 speculations. But I do look for a connection to be made with what has come before. For now, (3) just too closely mirrors that prior Zika debate - where your heroic attempts to eliminate the evil moral object of contraception could not get there. Pending a better exposition, I can’t dismiss the possibility that this particular speculation (as to theological basis) is born of “creative conscience” which JP II warned us about. “On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.” VS (56)]

If you study the theology of indirect moral acts a little more deeply I believe you will find flaws in your cogitations here.

Is it my cogitation, or JP II’s? This seems to demonstrate exactly the observation that Ender made earlier (post #167) about your arguments. "You’re position is full of supposition, what ifs, and “I’m trained, you’re not, so I must be right.”]

 

[Rau]

Interesting article on the AL debate:
catholicherald.co.uk/issues/december-2nd-2016/how-the-dubia-drama-will-end/

The author made this statement which struck a chord with me (in connection with the dubia):

*"The Pope is in a difficult position. If he were to state that the principles taught by St John Paul II were no longer part of the Church’s teaching, he would cause a theological earthquake. Never in modern times has a pope publicly disavowed his predecessor…

On the other hand, if Francis reaffirms the previous teaching, then he must either abandon his attempts to reform the discipline of the sacraments, or come up with arguments to show that the contradiction is only apparent. Defenders of the change, chief among them Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, have said that the change they advocate is not a reversal of former teaching but a development of doctrine. I have so far seen nothing which convinces me that this is more than mere affirmation, unsupported by cogent, rational demonstration."*

The **bold **text is the issue I raise. Where is the rationale? Why must we speculate?

 

[Rau]

Ask Ender [about bitter pill].

I detected no bitterness from Ender. Nor for that matter your usual charge of “lack of understanding”.

Yes there shouldn’t be a need for this thread.

And yet there plainly is. And 4 cardinals were moved to produce a dubia. And some Archbishops are quickly putting in place procedures to enable Communion for some remarried and others have already declared there is no change. No doubt you will view those “moving forward” as the one’s who “understand” and all the others as “lacking capacity to understand”. Doesn’t advance the debate much.

 

[Rau]

I do not understand why some contributors are so obsessed with the admission of some irregulars to Communion by a PP that they can only accept this if it’s equivalent to a decree of nullity.

Your statement was: “…Pope Francis is aware of this hence his use of less formal and less evidentially stringent processes (ie Accompanyments) for admitting failed yet worthy irregulars to Communion.”

There is no obsession Blue, just noting that an appropriately manifested conclusion that the original marriage was invalid would eliminate all concerns. Like you, I don’t think Francis is at this point proposing that course.

If we say the validity of the first marriage is not the matter in question then - on the surface - we have the situation that the existing Church rules purport to address. But given that a new rule is being introduced, then isn’t it reasonable to anticipate the new rule to exist in some theologically consistent way alongside the existing rules? The dubia essentially asks for just such an exposition. Apparently, such exposition is not yet available. And thus we have the speculation in this thread.

 

[Ender]

You clearly have a problem trying to to fit AL pastoral decisions into your current hypotheses/model/theology (call it what you will) of how the Church operates.

Actually, what I have a problem with is fitting the *interpretations *of AL with existing church doctrines.

From my perspective you are clearly boxed in. You must eventually make a decision…either Pope Francis has the wrong understanding of what the Church is about, or you do.

My disagreement is not with AL, it is with your interpretation of it. I can’t really be held to disagree with Francis since it isn’t clear what he said. This is one of the major problems with the document; it is vague and ambiguous, and it is precisely regarding those ambiguities that the cardinals have asked for clarification.

But it is simply an objective logical judgement of the clear enough facts by use of reason and intelligence that both you and I possess that you and Pope Francis have intrinsically opposed understandings of traditional Church teaching and theological concepts.

All that is clear is that you and I have come to different conclusions regarding what the document says. You assume that your understanding is accurate and reflects what the pope meant, but neither you nor anyone else has any explanation for the obvious conflicts of that expansive interpretation with existing doctrine. Given we have been told repeatedly that there were no doctrinal changes it would seem that either this claim is incorrect, or the interpretation that necessarily includes doctrinal revisions is wrong.

Whether your model is consistent or in fact flawed doesn’t really matter - it is clearly different from the Pope’s.

All that is clear is that my understanding is different than yours.

But it doesn’t matter for the situation you find yourself in is clearly at odds with the Pope’s model of the Church under the hood.

You misuse the word “clearly”. All you mean by it is “I’m clearly right and you’re clearly wrong.” Clearly I don’t agree. I’ll say it again: my disagreement is with your interpretation of AL. That you think your interpretation is accurate doesn’t actually make it so.

You must judge whether Pope Francis is in serious error…or you simply lack the capacity to understand what is going on and ride it out in effective intellectual darkness.

Or I could just judge you to be in serious error and all those other considerations vanish.

If you decide Pope Francis is in serious error then you must next decide whether he is obstinately so the longer he remains silent or, God forbid for you, becomes more explicit in his position. If he proves obstinate you must conclude he is a heretic. Do you really feel your theology is strong enough to sincerely make that decision in certain conscience?

Or I could just judge you to be in serious error and all those other considerations vanish.

If you are the intelligent and objective person you claim to be then I do not see how you can disagree with my attempted objective and logical assessment of your predicament.

I judge you to be in serious error and all those other considerations vanish.

That I disagree with your limited understanding of Church theology, that I have a M.Theol/Phil, that I have 10 years voluntary pastoral experience in the Church, that I am a design engineer by employment, that I have three other full time degrees in completely different fields etc etc has nothing to to with this observation re your predicament.

As I pointed out before, regardless of pedigree it is difficult to defend error. With your background you should be able to craft an argument and cite other documents to support your position, but instead of that you rely on creating a non-existent conflict between me and the pope. Every assertion I make is supported by a citation from a previous pope or another church document. Your “arguments” are solely about me. If you have an M. Theol/Phil then put it to use. Try crafting a real argument.

Sure it may be logically consistent for you to say the Pope is in error and you are not. But is it likely?

True, it is not likely that the pope is in error, but it seems to me to be highly likely that you are.

Ender

 

[Ender]

BTW if “sin” is defined as any offence against the law of God…then clearly all killing is sinful…even if not morally sinful. The law of God clearly states, Thou shall not kill does it not?

It is not killing that the commandment proscribes, it is murder. Killing is not always sinful; it is not always an offense against God’s law, and I’m surprised you would actually interpret the commandment that way.

In Veritatis Splendor, JPII cites the decalogue numerous times, and in each case the citation expresses the commandment as prohibiting murder, as distinguished from killing:6) *Jesus said, 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; …
13) Jesus said: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery;… (twice)
13) *"*The beginning of freedom", Saint Augustine writes, "is to be free from crimes… such as murder, adultery…
15) Thus the commandment “You shall not murder” becomes a call…
17) The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder;…
52) … keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery,…*It should be apparent that JPII understood the fifth commandment as prohibiting murder, and not as a flat prohibition of all killing.

Nor do I recognize the distinction you make here: “all killing is sinful…even if not morally sinful”. What kind of a sin is not a moral sin? If something isn’t immoral how could it be a sin? If it is an offense against God’s law how could it not be immoral?

You want people to concede killing is somehow less evil than adultery…sorry, but killing comes before adultery and stealing.

Murder is worse than adultery but killing (e.g. in self defense) is not even a sin, let alone a grave one like adultery.

If killing and stealing admit of exceptions that significantly change the severity of those grave acts then I am willing to reassess traditional pastoral judgements of some acts of adultery too. Just as Pope Francis has.

Killing admits of exceptions, but murder does not (that’s why it is intrinsically evil), and you’re playing with the meaning of “grave”. Killing is a grave (as in serious) act, but it is not a grave (as in mortal) sin. Indeed, it is no sin at all. Adultery is both a grave act and a grave sin.

I raised this point before but you didn’t respond to it: you’re looking for a way to define what appears to be an adulterous act as not adultery, and therefore not a sin. Fair enough: what situations does this apply to?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Find a tradition that consistently says this about all forms of adultery.

Unlike killing, which has both moral and immoral forms, there is only one form of adultery. Adultery is prohibited without exception, killing is not. “Thou shall not commit adultery” qualifies as an old enough tradition that admits of of no exceptions.

The Commandment at face value is agin you re non State killings. Directly intended personal killings are always and everywhere morally evil…even the CCC makes that clear.

You’ve qualified your position to the extent that now even you disagree with what you said before. And now we agree: an individual may not intend to kill unless it is properly sanctioned by the State.

The question then is whether cases of indirect adultery are able to be reasonably identified…just as such can be done for killing in lethal self defence.

I’m not familiar with the “indirect” form of adultery. What do you mean by that?

Direct personal killings are of course forbidden always and everywhere. But indirect personal killings are not. Check the CCC, it’s very clear on this point.
Therefore just because some offence is intrinsically evil does not mean that it cannot be indirectly chosen for proportionate reasons.

You cannot have it both ways: if direct personal killing is forbidden then it may not be chosen for any reason. If there is some way to justify choosing it “indirectly” then it ceases to be “direct”. What you are discussing is appearance. A shoots B, C shoots A: are either, neither, or both of these acts immoral? You can’t tell without knowing more; they appear similar but the conditions determine their natures.

I can justify killing, because even though murder is proscribed, killing is not. There is no way to justify adultery, although there may be a way to define something that appears to be adultery as not in fact adultery despite the appearance. That would be a more fruitful approach.

The fact that neither killing nor murder made it into this alleged list of intrinsically evil acts does destroy it’s credibility I would have thought?

No, the point was to show adultery as an intrinsic evil, it was not to make a list of all intrinsic evils.

So please spare as the fundamentalist Scripture quotes as if they somehow prove your views.

I was actually citing JPII using that “fundamentalist Scripture quote”. He was using it to prove his view. I was using his view to justify mine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I know I’ve brought this up at other points in this debate, but I would like this explained, please.

Not all that long ago, as far as Church history is concerned, around AD1530, there lived a King of England. This King was known to be a staunch defender of the Catholic Faith and he ruled a land which had long been faithful --a land which had even supplied an English Pope at one time.

This King had been married for 20 years to a good and faithful Catholic queen. When that queen was only 15, she had been married to this King’s older brother, but he was likewise only 15, and sickly. They did not consummate the marriage, and the young prince died only 6 months later. This king and the princess (now queen) married, had several children, but only one daughter survived infancy.

The king’s conscience began to bother him. Though he loved the queen and had thought himself free to marry, was he really free? She had been married to his brother --and now she was ‘barren’–that was the curse of those who married a brother’s wife, the Bible said so. Had he been free? Was that marriage truly valid in the eyes of God.

Over years (and with the impetus of a woman who demanded marriage before any kind of sexual relations, i.e. no mistress she) this king was convinced that his first marriage was invalid. He married the second woman quietly and announced that she was now his lawful wife, not the other woman.

The entire country of England was wrenched into Protestantism, and many people lost their lives, including two saints of the Church, St Thomas More and St John Fisher, over the issue of whether this was indeed a lawful marriage.

Now it appears that, in the context of this new AL, that was all for nothing.

Because Henry quite specifically mentions that it was his conscience that had determined the validity of his marriage to Anne, and the invalidity of that to Catherine.
AND Henry had not one, but two prelates, Cardinal Wolsey and later Archbishop Cramner, who concurred with him.

If AL had been in place in 1530, Henry could have quite successfully used it. He was himself well versed in theology, his conscience was paramount, and he had prelates in concurrence every step of the way.

If there is an attempt to read AL as permitting those in an irregular union which has not been judged valid by the Church and there is no chance (and the argument would have been used that, with Catherine’s nephew as Holy Roman Emperor and holding the Pope as a hostage, the Church ‘could not’ pronounce as it was under duress) of the Church being able to judge it, and if what is needed for those people to receive the sacraments, which would by definition establish them as being in full union/communion with the Catholic Church, is ‘primacy of conscience, self-determination of validity, and the guidance of a qualified prelate’, then Henry and Anne were in the right all along, and St Thomas More and St John Fisher died for a lie.

Thank you for this; that’s quite an interesting perspective. I would be really interested in seeing someone respond to this.

Ender

 

[Ender]

TE may I politely suggest this has little to do with the topic of this thread, present discussion or even AL…which does not seem to speak of the primacy of conscience as a single or even major deciding factor in a PP’S decision to provide Communion.

That’s incorrect. This goes precisely to one of the five dubia raised by the cardinals:
*5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
*Ender

 

[Vico]

That’s incorrect. This goes precisely to one of the five dubia raised by the cardinals:
5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Ender

Reference:

1. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.

And the freedom and law teaching preceded in item 54:

1. The relationship between man’s freedom and God’s law is most deeply lived out in the “heart” of the person, in his moral conscience. As the Second Vatican Council observed: “In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: ‘do this, shun that’. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (cf. Rom 2:14-16)”.101

The way in which one conceives the relationship between freedom and law is thus intimately bound up with one’s understanding of the moral conscience. Here the cultural tendencies referred to above — in which freedom and law are set in opposition to each other and kept apart, and freedom is exalted almost to the point of idolatry — lead to a “creative” understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Church’s tradition and her Magisterium.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s incorrect. This goes precisely to one of the five dubia raised by the cardinals:
5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Ender

I prefer to be guided to an understanding of AL by it’s own content and by the Argentinian Draft and by the author himself.

That being the case you will more objectively find that conscience has a minor role as I did observe.

If you prefer the over anxious comments of one who murmurs against that author I suggest you will see only what you fear to see and objective conversation is not possible with you on this point.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I prefer to be guided to an understanding of AL by it’s own content and by the Argentinian Draft and by the author himself.

That being the case you will more objectively find that conscience has a minor role as I did observe.

If you prefer the over anxious comments of one who murmurs against that author I suggest you will see only what you fear to see and objective conversation is not possible with you on this point.

“over anxious comments”. “Murmurs against that author”. . .‘see what you only fear to see’. . .

The overall tone of the above speaks for itself, loudly and clearly. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear. . .”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Wait, what? “Jesus wants some of these impure adulturers to come to communion?”

Jesus wants? Just who is speaking for Jesus here? I simply do not see, even in AL, a claim that “Jesus wants some of these impure adulturers to come to communion.”

Honey chile, we have heard from time immemorial that 'the horse has bolted, the Church has changed, listen". . .

My thread asked a question based on the given assumption that Pope Francis has allowed for the possibility that non abstainers in irregular marriages may under certain conditions be permitted to receive. If you do not accept that assumption please go and start your own thread on the topic.

Parading on another’s parade is not the mature behaviour expected from one who goes around addressing others as “honey child” . I find it strange you continue addressing contributors in this unfortunate way given that only yesterday another recipient of your uncharity politely remonstrated they were 67.

This undisciplined emotion indicates to me that my Psych 101 obervation above may be accurate…the real problem with AL is not lack of clarity…some of our older brother types are very likely in complete denial of the value change re our attitudes to some irregulars in fact being worthy and pure enough for Communion if approved by the PP. For some the mind will not see what the heart cannot accept.

I repeat, for such of our older brother types one explanation is not enough…more will make no difference. It is the heart that needs to soften…the eyes are clear enough.

It’s ironic that the Canon lawyer types seem to have the most difficulty.

 

[Ender]

Reference:56. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.

And the freedom and law teaching preceded in item 54:

1. The relationship between man’s freedom and God’s law is most deeply lived out in the “heart” of the person, in his moral conscience. As the Second Vatican Council observed: “In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: ‘do this, shun that’. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (cf. Rom 2:14-16)”.101

The way in which one conceives the relationship between freedom and law is thus intimately bound up with one’s understanding of the moral conscience. Here the cultural tendencies referred to above — in which freedom and law are set in opposition to each other and kept apart, and freedom is exalted almost to the point of idolatry — lead to a “creative” understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Church’s tradition and her Magisterium.

Thank you for providing this. It isn’t difficult to discern the approach JPII was warning against in some of the interpretations given to AL.* cultural tendencies… in which freedom and law are set in opposition to each other and kept apart, and freedom is exalted almost to the point of idolatry — lead to a “creative” understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Church’s tradition and her Magisterium.
*

• No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.
  *As the cardinals asked: “do we still regard as valid” what JPII said? Really, is this some kind of trick question that can’t be answered yes or not?

Ender

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My thread asked a question based on the given assumption that Pope Francis has allowed for the possibility that non abstainers in irregular marriages may under certain conditions be permitted to receive. If you do not accept that assumption please go and start your own thread on the topic.

Parading on another’s parade is not the mature behaviour expected from one who goes around addressing others as “honey child” . I find it strange you continue addressing contributors in this unfortunate way given that only yesterday another recipient of your uncharity politely remonstrated they were 67.

This undisciplined emotion indicates to me that my Psych 101 obervation above may be accurate…the real problem with AL is not lack of clarity…some of our older brother types are very likely in complete denial of the value change re our attitudes to some irregulars in fact being worthy and pure enough for Communion if approved by the PP. For some the mind will not see what the heart cannot accept.

I repeat, for such of our older brother types one explanation is not enough…more will make no difference. It is the heart that needs to soften…the eyes are clear enough.

It’s ironic that the Canon lawyer types seem to have the most difficulty.

A. I would be an older sister (age 60). Thank you.
B. Psych 101? That’s nice. I remember that class. Abnormal psych was interesting too. Lots of neuroses and psychoses and such. Of course, since I am not a physician nor a psychologist myself, I would think constant references back to my freshman year classes might lead one to suppose I was actually considering myself qualified to ‘judge’ others; something the forum discourages, and rightly so.
C. Regarding 'one explanation is not enough, etc. “Pot, meet kettle.” IOW, what you ‘see’ with others might be equally what others see in you.
D. Guess southern expressions, which will crop up with us older ones over the holidays when we have lots of family over, and have been used to addressing our loved ones when they are not exactly being the easiest to deal with, and rather than being tempted to address them with more formal ‘you, sir, are mistaken’ etc lest one appear ‘rigid’, should be eschewed by me in future. Thank you for your contribution, my dear sir.

 

[Richca]

I find this a well balanced approach because you have separated out only the objective component in this discussion, no talk of mortal sin for example.

I think the weakness lies in your implied assumption that God is seriously offended by a prely juridical assessment of the situation which can only ever be a fallible human approximation re what God sees. And there are often objective indicators when our approximations go outside the “sweetspot”.

 

[pnewton]

He made it THEN. Would he (the Pope) have made it if AL was in place? You’re missing the question.

I answered the only question that can be answered. Speculative history is empty of relevant data and has no bearing on anything. It only reveals the thoughts of the one speculating as what did not happen is always impossible to know. Therefore, I have found it useless in understanding moral theology. I would rather concentrate on what is, that is reality. Historical context is vital and should never be disregarded.

Once the murder had been repented, and forgiven, Bathsheba was as a widow free to marry. Just as, in an irregular second marriage, if the spouse from the first marriage dies, then the spouse in the second marriage becomes free to marry.

Bathsheba was a widow. David was still married. His polygamy did not kill his relationship with God.

 

[commenter]

A. I would be an older sister (age 60). Thank you.
B. Psych 101? That’s nice. I remember that class. Abnormal psych was interesting too. Lots of neuroses and psychoses and such. Of course, since I am not a physician nor a psychologist myself, I would think constant references back to my freshman year classes might lead one to suppose I was actually considering myself qualified to ‘judge’ others; something the forum discourages, and rightly so.
C. Regarding 'one explanation is not enough, etc. “Pot, meet kettle.” IOW, what you ‘see’ with others might be equally what others see in you.
D. Guess southern expressions, which will crop up with us older ones over the holidays when we have lots of family over, and have been used to addressing our loved ones when they are not exactly being the easiest to deal with, and rather than being tempted to address them with more formal ‘you, sir, are mistaken’ etc lest one appear ‘rigid’, should be eschewed by me in future. Thank you for your contribution, my dear sir.

other poster:
" only yesterday another recipient of your uncharity politely remonstrated they were 67"
end

from Commenter: I wasn’t remonstrating about being called “hon”, I meant it in humor. As a 67 year old Northern male, I don’t mind it at all, it was very nice.