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

[carn]

Furthermore, the “obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin” which c. 915 defines as the condition under which a minister of Holy Communion is to deny a person who approaches the Sacrament PUBLICLY, is NOT simply a matter of the state of grace - it is about one’s public state of life. Even a person in a second union who is living in continence - or is merely intending to passively tolerate intercourse, as a woman who fears for her safety should she not cooperate might licitly do - would STILL fall under the canon. The virtue is secret, with a public veneer of grave sin. Either the union must be entirely repudiated (by civil divorce, most likely) or the person must receive the Sacrament in private where there can be no real risk of scandal. It is not merely about sacrilege.

But i think this is no fundamental obstacle.

If catholics and non-catholics would from the attitude be such, that a change in c. 915 would not be perceived as an official OK from Church to adultery and it would also not be considered a scandal by most, then altering c. 915 might be a reasonable decision.

Of course, based on the practical observation that even some cardinals are scandalized even by the indirect hint in a footnote enough to actually talk about “correcting” the pope, one can be reasonably sceptical that the situation is such that it would be a reasonable decision.

But that is no fundamental obstacle like the other point you mentioned and explained, which might be a fundamental obstacle.

 

[e_c]

But i think this is no fundamental obstacle.

If catholics and non-catholics would from the attitude be such, that a change in c. 915 would not be perceived as an official OK from Church to adultery and it would also not be considered a scandal by most, then altering c. 915 might be a reasonable decision.

Of course, based on the practical observation that even some cardinals are scandalized even by the indirect hint in a footnote enough to actually talk about “correcting” the pope, one can be reasonably sceptical that the situation is such that it would be a reasonable decision.

But that is no fundamental obstacle like the other point you mentioned and explained, which might be a fundamental obstacle.

The problem is not the footnote you quoted, it is footnote 351.

There is also the persistent confusion between canons 915 and 916. It doesn’t matter if you think Christ appeared to you and told you to go to Communion… If you are living in a public relationship which manifestly implies you are living contrary to the Commandments, then whoever is distributing the Sacrament must deny it… even if there is an occult reality that means you are not living as your state implies and the minister knows it.

There is not a single compelling reason anyone has brought forth to change the way c. 915 is implemented, let alone to change the text itself - which has not even been suggested by even one person of note throughout this whole fiasco, as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, note that if you pulled off a diamond heist and triple homicide with a friend just before showing up to Mass with him, and you are EMHC, you must distribute the Sacrament to him.

I live in Rome… I can tell you that from my little sliver of insight based on being here, the tension is extreme and can’t last too much longer.

Pray.

 

[carn]

If you are living in a public relationship which manifestly implies you are living contrary to the Commandments, then whoever is distributing the Sacrament must deny it… even if there is an occult reality that means you are not living as your state implies and the minister knows it.

But whether any public relationsship manifestly implies that or not depends on the result of the fact-finding method; so in other words, whether or not the tribunal found the former marriage to be valid or not decides whether the now public relationship manifestly implies or does not imply contradiction to Commandments.

As a change of the fact-finding method, e.g. from tribunal to personal conscience, can both lead to different individual results and to a different perception when and if the public relationsship implies or does not imply such breach of Commanments, a change of the fact-finding method could justify a different pastoral practice in this.

If you still are sceptical, you are somewhat right, because what i discuss here would be a scenario in which:

• individual conscience of catholics is in general far more reliable in correctly determining whether a marriage is valid than evidence based tribunals
• individual conscience of catholics is such well formed that catholics individually and without outside reminders accept this result
• both is generally accepted and understood by catholics
• catholics are in general well enough educated to understand, that this should not and is not used for “easy catholic divorce”
• catholics and especially bishops regularly and effectively communicate and defend catholic understanding of marriage so that non-catholics also do not get the impression that thats the “easy catholic divorce”

In such a scenario, i think this part of the problem - the public effect of receiving communion - would be irrelevant enough to consider altering c. 915 and/or other rules.

And you are correct to be sceptical about my arguments, because it would be ridicolous to assume we are practically anywhere near such a situation; so i agree that for the current situation, there is the problem, you see; just in some unrealitistic but not completely impossible scnario it might be non-existent.

I live in Rome… I can tell you that from my little sliver of insight based on being here, the tension is extreme and can’t last too much longer.

Pray.

Yes and yes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I do not know what will come. I was only speculating on what has been said so far, and even that was only one point. I am trying to honor your original request.

Trying to understand this.
What do you believe I said that goes further than anything FI (Pope Francis) has opened up?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not juridical. It is an object state the tribunal only tries to discern. This was one of the first things I learned when studying this issue. It is very possible that a person may know better than the tribunal and not be able to prove it.

If we are talking disagreements between the perceptions of those involved then so as to practically move forward some authoritative body has to make a decision as to what the objective situation is. It is interesting that we speak of the “objective truth” when in fact there is no human person or tribunal capable of ascertaining with objective certitude what the case before God actually is!

The best we have is a juridical decision and everybody moves on accordingly and assumes as best they can the juridical duties and freedoms that flow from this decision even if some sincerely disagree and may even be correct before God.

So when a Tribunal is unable to decide, from poor quality or technical lack of evidence, what is pretty obvious to those involved, that means we must default to the current juridical presumptions that favour the original juridical act of the first marriage.

So the first marriage is what stands and the 2nd does not exist in such juridical terms.
But is adultery taking place in the 2nd marriage?

Well, certainly juridical, technical adultery is.
But is that the sort of adultery that pained Jesus?

I don’t think so.
He also saw adultery as possible with the eyes.
I think he was on about something much deeper than somewhat shaky juridical assumptions regarding a wife beating philandering first husband and irretrievably failed marriage being abandoned in favour of a new and stable marriage where marriage virtues do exist and thrive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Marriages are either valid or non-valid; just like for example some distant star either has planets in the habitable zone or not. Its just a fact thing.

For fact-finding regarding planets around stars the best method seems to be to pour a few billion dollars to intelligent and educated physicians and wait for their results; but even if they say around some star there is no respective planet, that doesn’t make it so; but usually we presume that they are more likely to be correct than anyone else; just if someone else for example has a better method and actually determines there is one, he is still right and the others wrong, and he might - if its relevant - act based on the information that there is a planet around that star.

For marriages one of the better fact-finding methods is setting up tribunals staffed with competent personell and give them some strange thing called “evidence” to digest and then produce some result; but it still might be wrong; usually we still have to accept it nonetheless, cause that is the best general method of fact-finding; but in special cases someone might actually be in a better position for fact-finding (e.g. if witnesses literally lied to tribunal, tribunal did not realize it and the person knows this for certain but cannot produce evidence for tribunal); for such a person the question is then, if such a person knows for certain that the tribunal got it wrong, so simply failed in this case about the fact-finding, may he act upon the true fact he found?

Church rules so far seem to say no, AL seems to say yes (after internal forum, discernment, etc, etc, to reduce the probability of knowing or unknowingly do this as a cheap way to avoid uncomfortable tribunal decisions).

I do not think there is a fundamental problem.

Cause either the marriage is valid or non-valid; and Church can decide upon the best methods to determine this; if sometimes personal conscience is better than tribunal, Church might allow it.

(of course one could still discuss, whether there are that many cases the tribunal would fail where the personal conscience succeeds compared to the cases where the tribunal succeeds and the personell consciences fails; but that is no fundamental doctrine, but just a comparison of the pros and cons of different fact-finding methods)

Yes I agree with this insight in general.
Many seem to think the PP accompanyment process if favourable must make a juridical ruling on the marriage as some sort of more relaxed Tribunal process.
I believe this to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what FI has initiated.

I think the personal conscience thing is a necessary cause in being considered for this process but it cannot alone ever be a sufficient cause for being granted access to Reconciliation and Communion by the PP.

 

[pnewton]

But not for some questions.

For example to directly and intentionally kill a definitely innocent human,…

…see Sodom and Gommorah and the issue of not “collaterally” killing the innocent while punishing the guilty)

I see we think alike. My first thought was the city of Ai. But then that is the problem with absolute statements; the must explain 100% of all data.

Of course I believe in yes/no questions, but they must be:

1. basic. For example, it is always immoral to blaspheme God.
2. general. For, example, it is a sin to behave contrary to one’s certain conscience.
3. specific. John Doe committed sin when he did x,y,z.

The problem is the data. Marriage absolutes have to include all the data, for example, the writ of divorce, and the forgiveness of King David while married to Bathsheba. The same God that spoke to Moses and through Nathan is the same God that we call Jesus.

 

[pnewton]

If we are talking disagreements between the perceptions of those involved then so as to practically move forward some authoritative body has to make a decision as to what the objective situation is.

Why should it be a body? I think one change the synod suggested, that the Pope is implementing is granting a priest authority to allow communion on a case by case basis, and this is a determination within the competence of a priest. Furthermore, even Paul allowed one’s state of worthiness for communion to be discerned by the individual.

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves

What do you believe I said that goes further than anything FI (Pope Francis) has opened up?

Allowing ongoing sexual relations for the stability of the marriage, for the sake of the children, is further.

I hate to go too far with this. As I did when I first became Catholic, I did not post on this topic because I did not want to present matters of my conscience which were, at the time, not aligned with the* practice* outlined by Pope John Paul. Now that Pope Francis has said some of the same things, I can discuss it. Yet still, I will not argue for my own opinions, though I suspect once more I am right.

In case you can’t tell, I was not raised Catholic, but Baptist, and attended an SBC university and seminary. The same love of theology that allowed me to convert has left me with a different perspective.

 

[Thomas_White]

For marriages one of the better fact-finding methods is setting up tribunals staffed with competent personell and give them some strange thing called “evidence” to digest and then produce some result; but it still might be wrong; usually we still have to accept it nonetheless, cause that is the best general method of fact-finding; but in special cases someone might actually be in a better position for fact-finding (e.g. if witnesses literally lied to tribunal, tribunal did not realize it and the person knows this for certain but cannot produce evidence for tribunal); for such a person the question is then, if such a person knows for certain that the tribunal got it wrong, so simply failed in this case about the fact-finding, may he act upon the true fact he found?

Trust me here: I know for certain this occurs and believe the person is ultimately responsible should they chose to receive the Eucharist, irregardless of any judgment of a tribunal. (This is equally true of the action a Catholic might undertake with respect to AL.)

The judgment of a tribunal is juridical and judges the validity of a marriage in accordance with canon law. It might be surprising for some to learn that a tribunal does not address the Sacrament of Matrimony.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is not the footnote you quoted, it is footnote 351.

There is also the persistent confusion between canons 915 and 916. It doesn’t matter if you think Christ appeared to you and told you to go to Communion… If you are living in a public relationship which manifestly implies you are living contrary to the Commandments, then whoever is distributing the Sacrament must deny it… even if there is an occult reality that means you are not living as your state implies and the minister knows it.

There is not a single compelling reason anyone has brought forth to change the way c. 915 is implemented, let alone to change the text itself - which has not even been suggested by even one person of note throughout this whole fiasco, as far as I can tell.

We cannot look to canon law for understanding. It is a tool of practice; practice is not a too of the law. The pope has denounce this type of rigidity whereby people are seen as situations and categories to drop down the decision tree of canon law and see where they end up. Canon law simply cannot cover everything. Even in civil law, which is vastly more detailed and expanded, there are safe guards to allow the bypass of law, like juries and judges, who might decide guilt but not punish.

Pope Francis does not want the Church to be the legalistic machine that allowed holy men to go pick up stones to execute a woman in need of mercy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Involuntariness seems to be a requisite for allowing a sinner to remain in a situation leading to sin. It was specifically stated in FC 84: “This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.

Agreed, there is still an expectation due to objective reasons (primarily the juridical validity of the still existing first marriage) that they must cease cohabitation as the teaching of Indissolubility is being contradicted by the cohabitation regardless of whether or not there is sexual activity.

However the Church also sees this evil is not an absolute evil and one may cooperate in it without personally sinning for proportionate reasons of good (the children).

It is interesting that this is not really a case of engaging in grave matter (contradicting Jesus’s teaching on permanence) but not sinning mortally due to impaired consent or understanding.
It is rather perhaps a case of the principle of double effect and indirect intention.

Therefore for some couples this is in fact not a concession to weakness but a meritorious act…choosing to stay together for the sake of the children…though with the knowledge that unintended consequent evils are indirectly cooperated with. Much like lethal self defence breaking the 5th Commandment but for proportionate reasons.

Of course I left out sexual activity in this analysis. And this is the whole crux re AL.
Does it change the analysis?

JPII seemed to think so, he said this only worked (ie unto Communion) if the couple abstained. Presumably if they tried but kept failing both Reconciliation and Communion still possible. But if they did not commit to abstaining…

If they don’t commit what was the Church view? Certainly no Communion. But must they separate then? I don’t think so, remember the children… But are they gravely sinning? If they will not abstain surely they are obliged to separate in all cases? I think the Magisterium has been curiously silent on this point! And the unspoken reality is also that the children will be lost to the Church if we force them to split…to say nothing of yet another solo mum and kids reduced to insecurity.

So this I think is the condradictory situation AL is finally attempting to resolve.

Some cannot commit to abstaining because they know it will destroy the marriage…or maybe they know themselves well enough to judge it psychologically impossible at this time.

Is sexual activity under these circumstances so intrinsically evil that no proportionate reason can make the choice an “indirect intention”? Like killing another to protect a greater good.

While most people don’t have the discipline of heart to even be allowed to be put into such a situation because so much self-interest is in play…nevertheless we cannot deny that is the situation many have blindly got themselves into…and often driven there by the evils of their first partner. Just as Jesus says, some are made “adulterers” by their first husbands.

Personally I do not believe Jesus meant such as these were committing the same sort of adultery as the 1st husband who kicked them out and got another.

 

[e_c]

But whether any public relationsship manifestly implies that or not depends on the result of the fact-finding method; so in other words, whether or not the tribunal found the former marriage to be valid or not decides whether the now public relationship manifestly implies or does not imply contradiction to Commandments.

As a change of the fact-finding method, e.g. from tribunal to personal conscience, can both lead to different individual results and to a different perception when and if the public relationsship implies or does not imply such breach of Commanments, a change of the fact-finding method could justify a different pastoral practice in this.

If you still are sceptical, you are somewhat right, because what i discuss here would be a scenario in which:

• individual conscience of catholics is in general far more reliable in correctly determining whether a marriage is valid than evidence based tribunals
• individual conscience of catholics is such well formed that catholics individually and without outside reminders accept this result
• both is generally accepted and understood by catholics
• catholics are in general well enough educated to understand, that this should not and is not used for “easy catholic divorce”
• catholics and especially bishops regularly and effectively communicate and defend catholic understanding of marriage so that non-catholics also do not get the impression that thats the “easy catholic divorce”

In such a scenario, i think this part of the problem - the public effect of receiving communion - would be irrelevant enough to consider altering c. 915 and/or other rules.

And you are correct to be sceptical about my arguments, because it would be ridicolous to assume we are practically anywhere near such a situation; so i agree that for the current situation, there is the problem, you see; just in some unrealitistic but not completely impossible scnario it might be non-existent.

There is no situation which justifies the individual conscience taking the place of and especially overruling a properly authorized tribunal in matters where the tribunal is there to address.

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? There is a reason for the jurisprudence in multiple divorce cases (if you remarry 4 times, you must get 3 annulments to have the 4th convalidated, as each union must be investigated), but I wonder if you can give me a case where this would actually happen…

Canon law is easy until you actually start to do it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is no situation which justifies the individual conscience taking the place of and especially overruling a properly authorized tribunal in matters where the tribunal is there to address.

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? There is a reason for the jurisprudence in multiple divorce cases (if you remarry 4 times, you must get 3 annulments to have the 4th convalidated, as each union must be investigated), but I wonder if you can give me a case where this would actually happen…

Canon law is easy until you actually start to do it.

Isn’t that exactly what Rad Sans do?

 

[pnewton]

There is no situation which justifies the individual conscience taking the place of and especially overruling a properly authorized tribunal in matters where the tribunal is there to address.

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

There is no situation which justifies the individual conscience taking the place of and especially overruling a properly authorized tribunal in matters where the tribunal is there to address.

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

 

[Vico]

Agreed, there is still an expectation due to objective reasons (primarily the juridical validity of the still existing first marriage) that they must cease cohabitation as the teaching of Indissolubility is being contradicted by the cohabitation regardless of whether or not there is sexual activity.

However the Church also sees this evil is not an absolute evil and one may cooperate in it without personally sinning for proportionate reasons of good (the children).

It is interesting that this is not really a case of engaging in grave matter (contradicting Jesus’s teaching on permanence) but not sinning mortally due to impaired consent or understanding.
It is rather perhaps a case of the principle of double effect and indirect intention.

Therefore for some couples this is in fact not a concession to weakness but a meritorious act…choosing to stay together for the sake of the children…though with the knowledge that unintended consequent evils are indirectly cooperated with. Much like lethal self defence breaking the 5th Commandment but for proportionate reasons.

Of course I left out sexual activity in this analysis. And this is the whole crux re AL.
Does it change the analysis?

JPII seemed to think so, he said this only worked (ie unto Communion) if the couple abstained. Presumably if they tried but kept failing both Reconciliation and Communion still possible. But if they did not commit to abstaining…

If they don’t commit what was the Church view? Certainly no Communion. But must they separate then? I don’t think so, remember the children… But are they gravely sinning? If they will not abstain surely they are obliged to separate in all cases? I think the Magisterium has been curiously silent on this point! And the unspoken reality is also that the children will be lost to the Church if we force them to split…to say nothing of yet another solo mum and kids reduced to insecurity.

So this I think is the condradictory situation AL is finally attempting to resolve.

Some cannot commit to abstaining because they know it will destroy the marriage…or maybe they know themselves well enough to judge it psychologically impossible at this time.

Is sexual activity under these circumstances so intrinsically evil that no proportionate reason can make the choice an “indirect intention”? Like killing another to protect a greater good.

While most people don’t have the discipline of heart to even be allowed to be put into such a situation because so much self-interest is in play…nevertheless we cannot deny that is the situation many have blindly got themselves into…and often driven there by the evils of their first partner. Just as Jesus says, some are made “adulterers” by their first husbands.

Personally I do not believe Jesus meant such as these were committing the same sort of adultery as the 1st husband who kicked them out and got another.

What was stated in FC was that it was a duty to live as brother and sister, if all else was in order, to be able to receive communion (but even then, only when no scandal given or where not known or secretly). Sot that implies that it would be a mortal sin to not live as brother and sister.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What was stated in FC was that it was a duty to live as brother and sister, if all else was in order, to be able to receive communion (but even then, only when no scandal given or where not known or secretly). Sot that implies that it would be a mortal sin to not live as brother and sister.

First up we need to tighten the terminology please!
I agree it could imply it is a sin of grave matter not to abstain.

This is very important if we are to go deeper theologically.

Some acts of certain classes of grave matter are not incompatible with grace because in some cases they may be done with full consent and knowledge without mortal culpability by reason of indirect intention.

Such is the case with lethal self defence which clearly breaks the 5th Commandment.

Who said the grave matter of the 6th Commandment cannot also admit of rare exceptions if there is very limited choices and a great enough proportionate good such as the stability of the 2nd marriage for the kids and the known problems and irretrievability of the first?

 

[Vico]

First up we need to tighten the terminology please!
I agree it could imply it is a sin of grave matter not to abstain.

This is very important if we are to go deeper theologically.

Some acts of certain classes of grave matter are not incompatible with grace because in some cases they may be done with full consent and knowledge without mortal culpability by reason of indirect intention.

Such is the case with lethal self defence which clearly breaks the 5th Commandment.

Who said the grave matter of the 6th Commandment cannot also admit of rare exceptions if there is very limited choices and a great enough proportionate good such as the stability of the 2nd marriage for the kids and the known problems and irretrievability of the first?

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why should it be a body?

I have no problem with an individual representing the body (ie all persons involved).

Furthermore, even Paul allowed one’s state of worthiness for communion to be discerned by the individual.

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves

Of course, Canon 916 reflects the self-examination duty for approaching Communion.
But we also need to take into account the duty of the minister (Canon 915) to vet objective grounds re the one approaching. Personal conscience /worthiness is not enough to actually receive.

Allowing ongoing sexual relations for the stability of the marriage, for the sake of the children, is further.

The following quote from the Argentinian Bishops Draft, endorsed positively by Pope Francis, looks to go just this much further to me:
*
“When the concrete circumstances of a couple
make it feasible…it is possible to
propose that they make the effort of living in
continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the
difficulties of this option…
In other, more complex circumstances, and
when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of
nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in
fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible
to undertake a journey of discernment. If one
arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case,
there are limitations that diminish responsibility
and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a
person judges that he would fall into a subsequent
fault by damaging the children of the new union,
Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access…” *

I hate to go too far with this. As I did when I first became Catholic, I did not post on this topic because I did not want to present matters of my conscience which were, at the time, not aligned with the* practice* outlined by Pope John Paul. Now that Pope Francis has said some of the same things, I can discuss it. Yet still, I will not argue for my own opinions, though I suspect once more I am right.

Thanks for sharing this, I do not believe you are alone and perhaps the time has come for this humble insight to be aired and to bear fruit by some form of Magisterial recognition.