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

[Blue_Horizon]

I think exception not been explored at least in FC. There grave sin (not grave matter) as used in canon law, is in practice mortal sin.

Well lets look at Canon 915 then:
“Those …who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

I suggest that swapping “grave sin” for “mortal sin” (as defined by the CCC) here will get you into deep theological difficulties for you would end up saying:

“Those … who obstinately persist in manifest mortal sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Noone, not even a priest, can identify when a person has lost sanctifying grace (mortal sin). But he can identify someone who manifestly engages in sins of grave matter - which may be either venial or mortal.

So it seems fairly clear why the 1983 Canon Law changed the 1917 version of this Canon from “mortal sin” to “grave sin”.

And in this context “grave sin” readily appears to refer to sins of “grave matter”.
Whether those sins be mortal or venial the minister cannot know - nor does he need to know. All he needs to identify is “grave matter” - and even then only certain types of grave matter.

 

[Vico]

Well lets look at Canon 915 then:
"Those …who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."

I suggest that swapping “grave sin” for “mortal sin” (as defined by the CCC) here will get you into deep theological difficulties for you would end up saying:

Noone, not even a priest, can identify when a person has lost sanctifying grace (mortal sin). But he can identify someone who manifestly engages in sins of grave matter - which may be either venial or mortal.

So it seems fairly clear why the 1983 Canon Law changed the 1917 version of this Canon from “mortal sin” to “grave sin”.

And in this context “grave sin” readily appears to refer to sins of “grave matter”.
Whether those sins be mortal or venial the minister cannot know - nor does he need to know. All he needs to identify is “grave matter” - and even then only certain types of grave matter.

Formal or actual grave sin may be manifest (vs private). Yes, St. Pope John Paul II wrote
The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who <> [in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes]. – Ecclesia de Eucharistia 37b

 

[e_c]

Sure there is. The Holy Father could allow his priests to make this determination in the internal forum. I would think reading Amoris Laetitia would make this possibility clear.

As I understand it, this is precisely what footnote 351 of AL would permit.

Then the priest becomes the tribunal, in effect. It might be possible to rewrite canon law to make this the mechanism of annulments.

It would be disastrous. It’s also not what is actually being done - it is “sidestepping” the tribunal, or worse, overruling it.

Even worse would be doing away with the mechanism altogether and leaving it to individuals. That would be catastrophic… and this is exactly where AL leads, in its theoretical endgame. “What if Father just doesn’t get me and my circumstance? What if he’s being meeeeeeean? What if I’m more merciful than he is? What if I can accompany myself more pastorally?” This is where it leads.

Is it possible to rewrite canon law to make the judgment of an individual’s conscience to be how annulments are done? Only insofar it conforms to the Divine Law which gives the Church authority over the administration of the Sacraments.

In other words, it does not seem possible.

 

[Thomas_White]

I suppose it depends what is meant by overruling a Tribunal?
I don’t know what this statement purports to mean exactly?

All a Tribunal seems able to do is decide if there is enough level of evidence to presume the putative first marriage bond existed.

A Tribunal is a juridical proceeding. It hears a marriage case under canon law and judges its validity accordingly. However, it does not judge the validity of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Deciding there is not enough evidence does NOT mean a decision for the first marriage . The first marriage simply remains standing by default. However it still remains downgraded to a “putative” marriage and there is always room for reassessing should more evidence be forthcoming.

I believe this depends on when the decision is made, and by whom, that there is insufficient evidence. If the marriage case is heard by a Tribunal, its judgment ultimately becomes final and no further appeal is possible.

However if there is enough evidence the putative marriage can be declared no marriage at all from the get go. This is a true decision re the marriage…and of course it may be overturned by a later Tribunal decision.

A Tribunal can only declare that a marriage was not valid under the provisions of canon law. It is a legal proceeding, and there can be no guarantee that it renders a correct judgment re: the Sacrament of Marriage. A true final decision concerning a sacrament could fairly be said to be a “divine” one. In this way, a decision to receive communion remains a person’s responsibility where Christ is the ultimate judge. This would hold true, I think, insofar as footnote 351 of AL is concerned.

I don’t see how an accompanyment decision re access to Communion rises to an overruling of either of the above Tribunal outcomes. It makes no juridical decisions re the juridical status of the first marriage at all.
It does make decisions about the disposition and obstinacy and scandal and responsibilities of the irregulars and access to Confession and Communion as per Canon 915 though. Quite another matter.

I would say that in such circumstances one had better prove correct in their decision to receive communion. An individual is truly not the final judge. They will stand alone at the Last Judgment.

 

[e_c]

I believe this depends on when the decision is made, and by whom, that there is insufficient evidence. If the marriage case is heard by a Tribunal, its judgment ultimately becomes final and no further appeal is possible.

A Tribunal can only declare that a marriage was not valid under the provisions of canon law. It is a legal proceeding, and there can be no guarantee that it renders a correct judgment re: the Sacrament of Marriage. A true final decision concerning a sacrament could fairly be said to be a “divine” one. In this way, a decision to receive communion remains a person’s responsibility where Christ is the ultimate judge. This would hold true, I think, insofar as footnote 351 of AL is concerned.

I would say that in such circumstances one had better prove correct in their decision to receive communion. An individual is truly not the final judge. They will stand alone at the Last Judgment.

Except God speaks through the authoritative decision of a tribunal, even if that tribunal gets the decision wrong.

It is a matter of obedience. We can’t exempt ourselves, presuming to know better than the Church.

 

[e_c]

Isn’t that exactly what Rad Sans do?

That is not the same as a declaration of nullity. They are separate acts.

 

[Thomas_White]

Except God speaks through the authoritative decision of a tribunal, even if that tribunal gets the decision wrong.

I reject that bit of clericalism in its whole cloth. No Tribunal speaks for God as a last judgment.

 

[e_c]

I reject that bit of clericalism in its whole cloth. No Tribunal speaks for God as a last judgment.

Certainly not, but God does indeed hand over the administration of the Sacraments and the government of the People of God to the hierarchical Church. As such, She must be obeyed, even if Her judgment does not match our own… and even if it is incorrect, in this sort of case and in some others.

One might cite many examples of the saints. The one that comes to my mind immediately is Padre Pio submitting to being sequestered in the 1920’s… “The will of the authorities is the will of God,” said the saint as he covered his face and bowed in obedience to his superior. At least that is the version of the story I have heard.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A Tribunal is a juridical proceeding. It hears a marriage case under canon law and judges its validity accordingly. However, it does not judge the validity of the Sacrament of Marriage.

I don’t really know what you mean or why you needed to say this?
In the end no person knows anything re even their own soul with 100% certainty.
All we can do is try and approximate God’s objective desire for us on earth by reasonable Church rulings so everybody can move on with their lives within agreed practical limits.
Of course if some in the depths of their conscience believe the first marriage was true before God then it would be sinful to remarry regardless. On the other hand if the Tribunal formally declares against the first marriage the other partner may marry again with neither objective nor personal sin provided their certain conscience does not reprimand them.
Even if they tricked the tribunal the first marriage no longer objectively stands. Objective as used here refers to the juridical order…not what God sees.

I believe this depends on when the decision is made, and by whom, that there is insufficient evidence. If the marriage case is heard by a Tribunal, its judgment ultimately becomes final and no further appeal is possible.

Unless you have some reference in mind you can show us I believe you to be quite mistaken.
Also, a further appeal to Rome is always possible as far as i know.

A Tribunal can only declare that a marriage was not valid under the provisions of canon law. It is a legal proceeding, and there can be no guarantee that it renders a correct judgment re: the Sacrament of Marriage. A true final decision concerning a sacrament could fairly be said to be a “divine” one. In this way, a decision to receive communion remains a person’s responsibility where Christ is the ultimate judge. This would hold true, I think, insofar as footnote 351 of AL is concerned.

I really couldn’t agree with this at all re Communion access. The first bit is so obviously true I again am mystified why you need to emphasize it?
Re Communion reception you only have half the picture methinks.
The decision to approach is just as you say. But the decision to give Communion from the minister’s side is based on different criteria which are objective and not to be decided by the approachee. Canons 915 and 916 refer to the two sets of duties involved.

Sure I can receive anonymously according to my conscience…Noone has problems with that…but that surreptitious and sollipsistic way of living the Christian life is far from the ideal and not healthy as a regular approach.

To receive publicly the current Canon 915 must be followed which requires the correct disposition for those manifestly known to be involved in some forms of objective grave matter. Degree of scandal caused is also a consideration.

Now that is a prudential judgement by the priest. I suggest AL is saying the priest, by accompanying the penitents will better inform himself so that he can make a wise decision on this matter. Further, AL clearly gives the priest authority to allow Communion even for the “willingly” sexually active when the very stringent criteria mentioned are reasonably judged to be met. These cases will be rare amongst the huge numbers and varied cases that knock at the Presbytery door. And it doesn’t matter if there can be no absolute certainty re the “facts”.

Nor does this process seem to supplant Tribunals in any way. It is simply a discerning of the best way to encorporate sinners into the public life of Christ and the parish. This is the proper responsibility of the PP and always has been. The objective status of the marriage has bearing on this decision but in the last analysis does not absolutely decide the matter in all cases.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is not the same as a declaration of nullity. They are separate acts.

Let’s revisit what you wrote:

Can you give me an example of a second union which would be publicly considered valid once the tribunal found the first union to be invalid?

So some second marriages were valid even before the tribunal made their declaration re the first marriage. Such do not need to repeat their vows after the Tribunal decision.

I accept the hidden validity of the second marriage cannot be known “publicly” until the Rad San is granted…but nor can we say that adultery was ever taking place and nor would the children be objective bastards from that time.

The Rad San does not make the second marriage valid, it simply declares it always was so from the moment the couple made their public civil vows.

 

[e_c]

To receive publicly the current Canon 915 must be followed which requires the correct disposition for those manifestly known to be involved in some forms of objective grave matter. Degree of scandal caused is also a consideration.

Now that is a prudential judgement by the priest. I suggest AL is saying the priest, by accompanying the penitents will better inform himself so that he can make a wise decision on this matter. Further, AL clearly gives the priest authority to allow Communion even for the “willingly” sexually active when the very stringent criteria mentioned are reasonably judged to be met. These cases will be rare amongst the huge numbers and varied cases that knock at the Presbytery door. And it doesn’t matter if there can be no absolute certainty re the “facts”.

What does this “accompaniment” consist of in detail (at least in a few concrete examples), and what might one discover that makes a person knowingly and willingly continuing in adultery properly disposed for the reception of Holy Communion, public or not?

These are the questions nobody will answer. Because there aren’t answers that square with doctrine.

 

[e_c]

Let’s revisit what you wrote:

So some second marriages were valid even before the tribunal made their declaration re the first marriage. Such do not need to repeat their vows after the Tribunal decision.

I accept the hidden validity of the second marriage cannot be known “publicly” until the Rad San is granted…but nor can we say that adultery was ever taking place and nor would the children be objective bastards from that time.

The Rad San does not make the second marriage valid, it simply declares it always was so from the moment the couple made their public civil vows.

Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.

§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

§3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Formal or actual grave sin may be manifest (vs private). Yes, St. Pope John Paul II wrote
The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who <> [in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes]. – Ecclesia de Eucharistia 37b

That’s a good find thanks.
Lack of proper public moral disposition is in fact what a barring from Communion is all about.
This is still nothing directly to do with “mortal sin” and loss of sanctifying grace.
It has a lot to do with public grace and manners and respect for the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.

§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

§3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

Yes this is pretty much what I said…my marriage is such a case…though it’s a first marriage only situation.

Validity here seems to have a meaning different from what most Catholics would mean by that word.

 

[Thomas_White]

Certainly not, but God does indeed hand over the administration of the Sacraments and the government of the People of God to the hierarchical Church. As such, She must be obeyed, even if Her judgment does not match our own… and even if it is incorrect, in this sort of case and in some others.

It is far from clear that footnote 351 of AL is in accordance with respect to the judgment of a Tribunal.

 

[e_c]

A radical sanation makes MAKES it valid from its beginning (unless otherwise noted). So, if the bishop (or other legitimate authority) decides NOT to do a radical sanation when such is needed due to an impediment, then the marriage remains invalid, even after the prior bond was declared null.

Gotta be careful. This stuff is more complicated than it seems… There are loads of logical subtleties in canon law.

By the way, the answer to my question is that a non-Catholic would not be bound to the law (namely canonical form)… But non-Catholics do not receive the Eucharist legitimately (except in certain special cases). So say a non-Catholic is in a second union with a non-Catholic. If he is entering full communion or being baptized into the Church, if his first union is declared null he does not need a convalidation or radical sanation for the second… The second union is presumed valid, provided the new partner was free to marry (was not already married, for instance, and is not of the same sex, is not a close blood relative, etc.).

So every prior union has to be investigated for someone to be presumed to be in a valid marriage currently, but not every union necessarily needs to be sanated or convalidated after a declaration of nullity for the foregoing union(s) in order to be presumed valid.

Jurisprudence… Fun stuff.

We are heading in a direction that goes beyond my pay grade in canon law, but the moral truth is clear: willful adulterous acts remain mortal sin.

 

[e_c]

It is far from clear that footnote 351 of AL is in accordance with respect to the judgment of a Tribunal.

Not much is clear about it at all.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A radical sanation makes MAKES it valid from its beginning. So, if the bishop (or other legitimate authority) decides NOT to do a radical sanation when such is needed due to an impediment, then the marriage remains invalid…

We have to be careful to distinguish between what is valid in God’s eyes from what the Church is able to mirror juridically by the term “valid”.

How can any human authority at a later date decide now ( rather than discern) if past civil vows effected a divine marriage bond before God in some sort of arbitrary on again off again fashion as your interpretation above suggests.

Like a Tribunal surely the most that a juridical process can do is declare by evidentiary means to the best of its ability what it believes happened before God in the past.

It cannot actually dissolve a past bond if it was validly made (in most cases) nor can it form a bond back then if it was not validly made. Likewise I suggest with a Rad San.

Of course if by “validity of marriage” we are just talking purely arbitrary juridical assertions as in politics then one can say and do anything re the status of past decisions and their validity.
But I think that for most of us here we think the marriage bond is something more objective than the machinations of arbitrary court fiats re the past.

Likewise with adultery…we feel Jesus, when he was speaking of adultery of the eyes, he was talking of realities deeper than mere legalism and technicalities of merely legal validity when it comes to marriage and adultery and indeed all relationships.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What does this “accompaniment” consist of in detail (at least in a few concrete examples), and what might one discover that makes a person knowingly and willingly continuing in adultery properly disposed for the reception of Holy Communion, public or not?

These are the questions nobody will answer. Because there aren’t answers that square with doctrine.

If breaking the 5th does not stop bishops allowing Catholic marines to receive Communion why would you think breaking the 6th must be theologically different?

Please do not tell me the 5th is about murder not killing.
The CCC will not support you!

 

[Thomas_White]

Certainly not, but God does indeed hand over the administration of the Sacraments and the government of the People of God to the hierarchical Church. As such, She must be obeyed, even if Her judgment does not match our own… and even if it is incorrect, in this sort of case and in some others.

It is far from clear that footnote 351 of AL is in accordance.

There was a time in my life when I was a party to an “irregular marriage” by reason of my spouse not having obtained an annulment of her first marriage. No minor children were involved, but after the marriage she lost interest in pursuing an annulment of her most recent (second) marriage, a presumptively valid Catholic marriage. (Prior to this civil remarriage, I was free to marry in the Church.)

Alas, her first marriage had occurred years earlier, and it was to yours truly. This marriage had indeed been annulled prior to her second and presumptively valid Catholic marriage–it also ended in divorce. Our remarriage was thus a civil marriage and therefore an irregular one. When she persisted in her refusal to seek an annulment of her most recent (second) marriage, I eventually obtained a civil divorce so as to fully return to the Church. It was the most painful and difficult experience of my long life. This occurred in the recent past and the civil marriage is now irretrievably broken. I of course subsequently returned to the Church.

Suffice it to say, this was not a trivial matter. I am now confused, in light of the more recent AL, and am wondering why it was necessary for me to endure this most difficult and life-altering experience.

Do we see that a plethora of difficulties will arise as a result of AL?