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

[Rau]

Your usage is quite justified. It is nothing short of shocking to see the criticisms that one finds in this forum and made by those very evidently neither theologians nor canonists. When I think back to having met the founder of the forum years ago, it is frankly very disappointing to see.

The forum is not restricted to participation by theologians and canonists. It would of course benefit from meaningful contributions by the more knowledgeable. If you are one such person, perhaps you might consider sharing your insights on the *substance *of this thread?

 

[jeannetherese]

No. They had not simply left the Church…they had rejected fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith.

It is most unfortunate that some have chosen to reject fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. Prayers offered for their conversion.

 

[OraLabora]

I have said this before: ,in all my life I know of two annulments and a third one somebody mentioned when I sincerely asked close friends if anybody knew cases of annulments. That was it. Three cases…in my whole life.
So it does really bug me when I hear the mess people here make for accompaniment and discernment and putting our life under the light of the Godspel and examination of conscience ,and all what AL says,as if it were going to Starbucks for us and asking for an “expresso”. It is not. At least not here or in my experience.
I know this is personal,but it bothers me and I prefer to be honest here.

To be honest, I don’t know anybody who had an annulment, or at least that has spoken to me about it. I suspect for most, it’s a private matter. I do however know several people who have either divorced and never remarried, or divorced and civilly remarried. I also have met people who left the Church over the whole D&R issue (I know some who have become Anglican/Episcopalian). Some are in my wife’s Anglican parish.

My experience is also that some of the D&R simply ignore the prohibition against communion, and go up and receive communion anyway. The practice in my part of the world is to deny no one, and leave it up to conscience. I won’t get into an argument as to whether that is right or wrong. It just is and in any event it’s not something I can change or influence in any great way. At my age, I pick my battles

I do happen to know that in my diocese, at least until the Holy Father intervened recently, an annulment cost $2500. That’s not a trivial amount for a couple who have also had the legal fees and financial disruption of a civil divorce on top of everything. I think that this is a very real obstacle for the middle-class and below. It probably explains why some folks simply don’t bother.

My hunch as to why D&R simply leave the Church is that they do not feel in full communion or community with the Church. If they remain Christian, they’d rather do so in an ecclesial community that welcomes them as full participants.

I think that AL is a good attempt by the Holy Father at addressing the issue, and looking for ways to shepherd these folks back to the Church and ultimately their salvation. My guess is that he thinks the risk is greater in driving them completely away than in looking for ways to invite them back into full communion with the Church even if that means slightly relaxing a discipline at least in limited cases and making mistakes occasionally. After all the Church is in the business of saving souls.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The forum is not restricted to participation by theologians and canonists.

That is abundantly evident.

 

[Rau]

That is abundantly evident.

Broad criticism of the participants does not improve the forum though, does it.

 

[Richca]

I agree. I’m sure there are some bone-headed comments made by some (I’ve seen them, especially those who unabashedly criticize Pope Francis maliciously), but just because someone isn’t a theologian, this doesn’t mean said person can’t make a valid point or do their own research without a degree. Dave Armstrong is a good example of this. Another would be Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich. She was a twenty-something nun from New Jersey who only had a literature degree from a liberal arts college. I’m always open to learning things and being corrected where I’m wrong, as the two people I mentioned are (and were) as well. These discussions have been most informative, especially with all the links and quotations from other theologians and Church documents as well.

In reading this thread, I think we’ve gotten way off base with trying to define whatever indirect or direct adultery is instead of just defining adultery as… well, adultery. Likewise, we see some trying to pick apart the Church’s teaching on what one can and cannot do in a state of mortal sin by trying to parse words on what it really means to be in a state of mortal sin, in a way that appears to disregard the reality of venial sin. Sin is sin whether it is venial or mortal. I’ve quoted Blessed Miriam before elsewhere, but I’d like to here again for consideration. Even if one’s adultery (or any sin) may not put one in a state of mortal sin due to their culpability, shouldn’t we be encouraging those people towards holiness by exhorting them to reject all sin, even if it be venial? The young Blessed Miriam puts all this discussion in great perspective, IMO:

Yes, Jesus commanded “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48).

And St Paul says “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12: 1-2; alternative translation - what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God)

Fraternal correction is an act of charity, one of the spiritual works of mercy, and as St Thomas Aquinas teaches, a matter of precept.

One can sin against fraternal correction by, among other things, cooperating in another’s sin as the CCC#1868 teaches:

Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Broad criticism of the participants does not improve the forum though, does it.

From my experience in this forum, about as much as most other contributions one endeavours to make.

After many years in the academy, I have never encountered a place to which I would give so negative an assessment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Simply changing the rules will not change behavior.

Why did you think I was saying that?

Pray tell, what are faithful irregulars? :juggle:

The sort of sinners Pope Francis is targeting who are likely as sanctified as us perfecti and who have the courage to knock on the presbytery door because they seek full Communion with Jesus…the sort of publicly outcast sinners Jesus loved to eat and associate with.