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

[Thomas_White]

There is nothing in doctrine that precludes a priest arriving at a decision different than a tribunal, and having the authority to act on it. You may see it as problematic, but it does not contradict doctrine.

It would be problematic. The Roman Rota is the final authority (court of last instance) in marriage cases. There can be no further appeal.

I think an area in which there is some disagreement over doctrine, as evidenced at the last synod, is whether it is actual mortal sin or only grave matter that prevents one from being unworthy to receive communion. As there is not agreement on this, how can it be considered doctrine?

Adultery is a mortal sin (CCC 1858). Its gravity may be relative (i.e., greater or lesser) but it is always a mortal sin.

If it is unworthiness that prohibits communion, then that only exists in the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin. That alone kills the spiritual communion. Yet there is also the element of communion with the Church. The latter sure seems more disciplinary and the former more doctrinal.

What does this mean when there is "the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin? What difference would “the element of communion with the Church” then make? Would it mean that communion would then be permissible despite "the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin?

 

[Vico]

There is nothing in doctrine that precludes a priest arriving at a decision different than a tribunal, and having the authority to act on it. You may see it as problematic, but it does not contradict doctrine.

I think an area in which there is some disagreement over doctrine, as evidenced at the last synod, is whether it is actual mortal sin or only grave matter that prevents one from being unworthy to receive communion. As there is not agreement on this, how can it be considered doctrine? If it is unworthiness that prohibits communion, then that only exists in the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin. That alone kills the spiritual communion. Yet there is also the element of communion with the Church. The latter sure seems more disciplinary and the former more doctrinal.

It is not the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin that is the condition for refusal of communion per canon law, but manifest grave sin. The individual should not ask to receive when not in the state of grace, but this is determined by the individual.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One is a sin, the other isn’t. It’s not a sin to accidentally kill an unjust aggressor in self defense, nor in lawful capital punishment, nor in just wars. It’s always a sin to commit adultery, which is necessarily a free act (or else it is assault).

Your argumentation is circular.
We know there are exceptions to Thou shall not kill.

The question is why the principles behind those exceptions cannot be applied to irregular marriages.

To say lethal self defence is always accidental and never foreseen or intended is simply not credible sorry. Few here could stomach those contortions of English, tummy bug or no .

 

[pnewton]

It is not the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin that is the condition for refusal of communion per canon law, but manifest grave sin. The individual should not ask to receive when not in the state of grace, but this is determined by the individual.

I was not really thinking of canon law though, but of reality, as in what is unchangeable doctrine. I think there is a lot of misconceptions about the nature of absolute moral truths that underlies the confusion as to what the Pope wants to do.

Adultery is a mortal sin (CCC 1858). Its gravity may be relative (i.e., greater or lesser) but it is always a mortal sin.

It is always grave matter (CCC 1858), but it is not always a mortal sin. I will quote your reference, as it appears.

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Perhaps one spin-off good from Amoris Laetitia will be a greater understanding of moral theology by Catholics, allowing us to avoid the pitfall of judgmentalism which is kind of an easy sin to slide into from piety.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Nonetheless, the question is simply thus: Should a Catholic in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

Thomas I believe it is theologically incorrect to label irregulars who may engage in sins of grave matter without full freedom “in a state of mortal sin.” They are in fact sinning venially.

What is the real question that concerns you?

If you seek to discern which irregulars sin mortally and which sin venially…that can only be discerned by God…and perhaps the sinner the self.

All a minister of Communion can do is judge by objective means which involves “disposition” and the objective aspects of their deeds. The latter is commonly called the matter of a moral act. If it is grave and public it is usually grounds for denial. But not always. It is a matter of custom or common sense re level of scandal.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would be problematic. The Roman Rota is the final authority (court of last instance) in marriage cases. There can be no further appeal.

The Rota does not decide who has access to Communion.
The accompanying priest does not decide who is officially married and who is not.

What theological assumptions cause you to lockstep these two different decisions by two different types of authority and jurisdiction?

What does this mean when there is "the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin? What difference would “the element of communion with the Church” then make? Would it mean that communion would then be permissible despite "the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin?

Nobody knows if subjective mortal sin is present.
And yes, those who have engaged in acts of grave matter often are not denied Communion (eg killers).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are so many things wrong in this post that it would probably take a small book to address them.

The problem is that you keep putting forth all these ‘magisterial statements’ as if they are ‘self-evident truths’ and not simply your own personal opinions.

No matter how you slice it, you’re still attempting to pass your personal definitions and ideas as ‘gospel’ and they are not.

Therefore, while you may have plenty to say, and while it is certainly worthwhile in a sense for those of us who recognize your errors to keep on patiently correcting them, in order that others may not be drawn astray likewise, I think that several posters here have over time made it quite clear regarding where you are going wrong when it comes to your misunderstanding of mortal sin and your attempts to redefine words to your own choosing regardless of what they actually mean.

Since my darling grandson has decided to gift me with the stomach bug that his little classmates are passing through school, I don’t have the time or indeed the stomach (so to speak) to address your latest errors further, but rest assured, once I am no longer nauseated (at least, not by the stomach flu) I shall return.

I simply await an equally self evident, if that be the case, rebuttal so convincing that my view could never be correct .

 

[Vico]

I was not really thinking of canon law though, but of reality, as in what is unchangeable doctrine. I think there is a lot of misconceptions about the nature of absolute moral truths that underlies the confusion as to what the Pope wants to do.

It is always grave matter (CCC 1858), but it is not always a mortal sin. I will quote your reference, as it appears.

Perhaps one spin-off good from Amoris Laetitia will be a greater understanding of moral theology by Catholics, allowing us to avoid the pitfall of judgmentalism which is kind of an easy sin to slide into from piety.

The last two responses were to quotes of Thomas White.

I note though, that Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, other Biblical authors expressed moral disapproval of behaviors and attitudes, such as 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul instructed the Church to exercise judgment:

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, 10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. 11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.”

 

[carn]

1. It would have to be the pastor who makes the decision. It can never be the individual. This is contrary to the nature of commutative justice… Here is an extremely important and often overlooked point (not by Our Lord) which proves why it can’t be up to the judgment of an “interested party”:

THE OTHER PERSON IN THE UNION HAS RIGHTS TOO.

This is at least part of why Christ accuses those who want remarriage of being hard-hearted… Nowadays, the accusation goes the other way, doesn’t it. Except sometimes, the other person is left out to dry. This must be investigated by an objective party.

My approach is here to look at the simple situations, in which for example the other first marriage spouse either does not care or would arrive at the same internal forum conclusion.

Usually, if a law is hard to implement with simple cases, one has found convincing evidence one should just forget for the moment about complicated ones.

E.g. A and B marry for true; but nonetheless it comes to civil divorce and A tries annullment and deliberately lies to tribunal, which then declares marriage void although it was and is a true marriage; B knows this.
B considers to “marry” D; may B? After all the tribunal cleared the way, its just an obstacle in B’s “internal forum”. To avoid mistakes, B postpones “marrying” and carefully goes through with an “internal forum process” with a trained, knowledgeable and compasionate pastor; unfortunately the result does not change, B still knows that the tribunal decision was factually wrong; B’s pastor agrees that B should trust the result of B’s “internal forum process” and act according to it; just stepping out of the confessional trying to cope with having to tell D that there will be no marriage due to B having to act based on prior marriage being valid, D happens to be in the Church and offers B a lovely and hopeful smile (being aware that B had to sort something out via “internal forum process” prior marrying D and hoping its now resolved), but B’s smile freezes to absolute zero in realization that due to a very devious mind designing this scenario, A happens to be with C also in the Church but of course right before the process of “marrying” C starts, and for all of us to give advice to B how a good christian should act there time is now stopped in the moment of silence when everyone waits for the priest to start speaking.

Should B try to warn C that C is about to enter an adulterous marriage without knowing? Should B remain silent and then bear D’s absolute fury how it could be that A marries based on lying and B stays silent while the lie is suddenly very relevant when it comes to D’s plans for life? What is the poor priest to do, if B speaks up about the problem? How can this not end up in scandal when B follows pastor’s advice about acting according to the result of the “internal forum process” and speaks out and the priest is left with shocking congregation either with ignoring the “internal forum result” (which was allowed because its supposedly more reliable than tribunals) or with stopping a marriage right in public although it being “ok” according to all official Church laws?

Could make a nice drama script (of course for more dramatic effect, B meets D’s eyes just in the moment of silence when it is said “If anyone knows any reason why these two should not be wed, let him speak now, or forever hold his peace.”, since for dramatic effect we would skip that detail that this is not usually asked at catholic weddings)

And the options for difficult scenarios multiply the more “marriages” and marriages we add.

1. It does not work even conceptually, as it contradicts the very idea of commutative justice… One may not be his own judge and jury.

It would at least require some special rules, if two spouses arrive at opposing conclusions about their marriage or “marriage”; but that is the problem, if one borders on considering “black-white-thinking” anathema, then one never considers such questions, because all footnotes and interviews in the world will not change that if one spouse considers a marriage valid while the other considers the same “marriage” invalid, then at least one of them is wrong; it is unavoidably a “black and white issue”.

And whoever is drafting the Holy Father’s documents these days (not just AL) is either a maniacal genius pushing just the right buttons or desperately needs to go back to school. I prefer to think it is the latter.

I suspect problems might be caused from being locked in a certain way of thinking, that as i said above nearly considers black and white thinking to be anathema. That is then neither deliberate nor a lack of knowledge, but a lack of ability for different perspectives.

 

[pnewton]

The last two responses were to quotes of Thomas White.

I note though, that Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, other Biblical authors expressed moral disapproval of behaviors and attitudes, such as 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul instructed the Church to exercise judgment:

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, 10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. 11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.”

Right, but the Pope now is Francis. Corinth had gotten to the point that a man was openly having sex with his mother. They had some other real serious issues, unless you are thinking it a universal truth the Church should not allow sinners. Do not forget that at one time God even demanded the destruction of every man, woman and child to protect his people.

 

[carn]

Nonetheless, the question is simply thus: Should a Catholic in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

I considered here mainly two situations:

1. someone being in a valid marriage with a prior “marriage” with tribunal failing to annull and that someone having very or absolute reliable knowledge about the prior “marriage” being invalid and the current marriage being valid, and that someone wants access to sacraments (i thought this might work somehow, but e_c offered enough issues that would make the “internal forum” even there highly problematic)
2. someone being in an invalid marriage with a prior valid marriage, which the tribunal also found valid, and that someone has very or absolute reliable knowledge about the prior marriage being valid and the current “marriage” being invalid; and wants access to sacraments and not live as brother and sister in current “marriage” although the new “spouse” has same knowledge and also wants access to sacraments (i have no idea how this could ever work based on the basic requirement of intent to sin no more for valid confession, which is necessary for any other sacrament)

 

[carn]

Corinth had gotten to the point that a man was openly having sex with his mother. They had some other real serious issues,

You think that what happens in our society openly is so to speak still “above” what was probably going on in Corinth? We can offer up Woody Allen who married the adopted daughter of a former long time spouse; thats not exactly openly having sex with mother, but it seems we are catching up to Corinth (of course only if they had ancient version of Planned Parenthood there selling baby parts for pagan rituals; otherwise we beat them with arms tied to back and blindfolded)

unless you are thinking it a universal truth the Church should not allow sinners.

A certain distancing might sometimes be wise; of course when and where this should be done, is a difficult question.

 

[carn]

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?

I am sorry what you had to go through; in case my words and arguments are problematic, please complain; i have a tendency to discuss issues and the very abstract, which i think is better for clarity, but it also often sounds cold hearted to those for whom it has very personal relevance.

But please allow me one question, you write:"(Prior to this civil remarriage, I was free to marry in the Church.)"; wouldn’t you still be free to marry in Church, as first “marriage” was invalid and second “marriage” never went to Church?

 

[pnewton]

You think that what happens in our society openly is so to speak still “above” what was probably going on in Corinth?

Whether it is or is not worse is still an* application* of scripture, not exegesis. You mentioned abortion. That is a sin which does incur excommunication. Today, the person who decides what needs to apply when is taking the approach of Jesus, who was also accused of associating with drunkards, by the way.

 

[carn]

Today, the person who decides what needs to apply when is taking the approach of Jesus, who was also accused of associating with drunkards, by the way.

While it is certainly a sensible, charitable and convincing argument to put sceptics on the level of the pharisees who in the end planned and carried out the murder of Jesus, i always wonder, if that also means, that ALL prior popes to some extent failed in taking the approach of Jesus. But who knows.

 

[Vico]

Right, but the Pope now is Francis. Corinth had gotten to the point that a man was openly having sex with his mother. They had some other real serious issues, unless you are thinking it a universal truth the Church should not allow sinners. Do not forget that at one time God even demanded the destruction of every man, woman and child to protect his people.

It is church law not natural or divine law. The canons changed in 1983. The former canon law from 1917 has can. 2267: “The faithful must avoid association in profane things with a banned excommunicate, unless it concerns a spouse, parents, children, householders, subjects, and so on, unless reasonable cause excuses.”

 

[Thomas_White]

I am sorry what you had to go through; in case my words and arguments are problematic, please complain; i have a tendency to discuss issues and the very abstract, which i think is better for clarity, but it also often sounds cold hearted to those for whom it has very personal relevance.

But please allow me one question, you write:"(Prior to this civil remarriage, I was free to marry in the Church.)"; wouldn’t you still be free to marry in Church, as first “marriage” was invalid and second “marriage” never went to Church?

Yes, I am now free to marry in the Church.

It was, I think, a rather unusual situation, and my intent was to provide it as an example of the complexities that could arise in light of AL. The first marriage was in the Church. It was subsequently annulled. She then remarried in the Church, divorced, but did not obtain an annulment of this second marriage. We much later remarried. We had been a couple all during college, and at the time of the first marriage we were both college graduates in our twenties. We were also both “cradle Catholics”. In good faith, I did not respond to the petition for annulment because I knew very well the marriage was valid at least for me–consequently, knowing all I did, I never believed the first marriage was invalid. Not at all. After we remarried we of course discussed this at length. Suffice it to say, the Marriage Tribunal was virtually clueless about the actual dynamics of our first marriage as well as its validity. The marriage case had been heard at her then diocese, some 1400 miles away from where I then resided. I had no participation in it. By the time this became an issue in our remarriage, she too had lost faith in the often trying annulment process. It is in part why she would not seek an annulment of her remarriage to me.

I alone had known that the distant Tribunal, due to a critical error on its part, did not have jurisdiction to even hear the marriage case (1673.3 of the code of canon law, if memory serves). Consequently, it was the Decree of Nullity that should have been invalid. After we remarried, I appealed the case, in accordance with canon law, to the Roman Rota on this basis. I never received a reply.

Again, this is provided as a real world example of the messy way practice is not necessarily in accord with doctrine. It should be a cause of concern with respect to certain provisions of AL that really ought to be clarified. Nevertheless, it is my perception that Pope Francis realizes there are sometimes extraordinary circumstances in messy cases. I imagine he has heard many such tales.

Thanks for your kind words. Words and arguments here are never problematic for me.

 

[e_c]

Your argumentation is circular.
We know there are exceptions to Thou shall not kill.

The question is why the principles behind those exceptions cannot be applied to irregular marriages.

To say lethal self defence is always accidental and never foreseen or intended is simply not credible sorry. Few here could stomach those contortions of English, tummy bug or no .

Oh my goodness. So you are saying that it is a SIN - a MORTAL SIN at that - to fight a just war, to kill accidentally in self-defense (or of another) - which is pretty well-defined in Catholic morality, and lawfully execute a rightly accused, fairly tried, very dangerous criminal?

Search Scripture, search Tradition, search common sense. All disagree. We aren’t Jains.

Even if it was a mortal sin, that is not what c. 915 is about. It addresses a special kind of mortal sin with an eye to prescribing norms for a certain kind of situation.

You can start another thread to discuss this truly sad and unnecessary position.

My approach is here to look at the simple situations, in which for example the other first marriage spouse either does not care or would arrive at the same internal forum conclusion.

Usually, if a law is hard to implement with simple cases, one has found convincing evidence one should just forget for the moment about complicated ones.

E.g. A and B marry for true; but nonetheless it comes to civil divorce and A tries annullment and deliberately lies to tribunal, which then declares marriage void although it was and is a true marriage; B knows this.
B considers to “marry” D; may B? After all the tribunal cleared the way, its just an obstacle in B’s “internal forum”. etc…

Surely, it happens… Here is the very clear and simple answer: B’s conscience binds B, it does not and cannot bind A. Indeed, the condition of having procured a positive judgment from the tribunal through lying would throw into doubt the validity of all future marriages for B… (She thinks she is not free to marry, so what exactly do her vows mean? Etc.) It does not do so for A. This is where principles like “ecclesia supplet” (c. 144 s. 1) come into play. However, A is in the sad situation - do to her own fault - of now being bound both by her own conscience AND the decision of the tribunal. The best remedy is clearly that A and B reconcile and exchange vows once again.

In no way does the internal forum help this reality, it rather complicates it and makes occult what is supposed to be available to all interested parties.

Finally, this absolutely does not give B the right to overrule the tribunal, who has given the final authoritative practical word, in a positive way in the opposite case or in a way which imposes a private judgment on the other partner in the former union. (I’m actually not sure if B could appeal the case, given that she procured the result she wanted. Perhaps?) Yes, it may have been wrong… it may also be based on the testimony of the other person, or the tribunal may have seen through what was going on (I’ve been on the “other side” of things, and can tell you that these folks ain’t put in place just because they’re innocent as doves but also because they are shrewd as serpents!), or one’s lie actually didn’t work canonically the way the person thought it would but only changed a certain non-essential detail, etc. Return to the analogy in civil law… If a man came out and said he’d lied in court after the ruling, he could be tried for perjury, but nothing else. He could not force himself into jail, no matter how guilty he knows himself to be. Especially could he not force someone else involved in the crime to go to jail.

And of course this scenario is the opposite of the one being talked about. It is rather that one tries and doesn’t get it granted - or even doesn’t try at all. This is more intuitively problematic, since one has one’s own “normal” material advantage in mind.

It is not the first time the Church has thought about marriage and law.

 

[e_c]

Yes, I am now free to marry in the Church.

It was, I think, a rather unusual situation, and my intent was to provide it as an example of the complexities that could arise in light of AL. The first marriage was in the Church. It was subsequently annulled. She then remarried in the Church, divorced, but did not obtain an annulment of this second marriage. We much later remarried. We had been a couple all during college, and at the time of the first marriage we were both college graduates in our twenties. We were also both “cradle Catholics”. In good faith, I did not respond to the petition for annulment because I knew very well the marriage was valid at least for me–consequently, knowing all I did, I never believed the first marriage was invalid. Not at all. After we remarried we of course discussed this at length. Suffice it to say, the Marriage Tribunal was virtually clueless about the actual dynamics of our first marriage as well as its validity. The marriage case had been heard at her then diocese, some 1400 miles away from where I then resided. I had no participation in it. By the time this became an issue in our remarriage, she too had lost faith in the often trying annulment process. It is in part why she would not seek an annulment of her remarriage to me.

I alone had known that the distant Tribunal, due to a critical error on its part, did not have jurisdiction to even hear the marriage case (1673.3 of the code of canon law, if memory serves). Consequently, it was the Decree of Nullity that should have been invalid. After we remarried, I appealed the case, in accordance with canon law, to the Roman Rota on this basis. I never received a reply.

Again, this is provided as a real world example of the messy way practice is not necessarily in accord with doctrine. It should be a cause of concern with respect to certain provisions of AL that really ought to be clarified. Nevertheless, it is my perception that Pope Francis realizes there are sometimes extraordinary circumstances in messy cases. I imagine he has heard many such tales.

Thanks for your kind words. Words and arguments here are never problematic for me.

That certainly does seem like grounds for an illegitimate declaration of nullity, supposing the lack of jurisdiction can be proven (which it seems it could be, if there is no document from the judicial vicar giving permission to hear the case).

How long ago was the appeal? Rome is notoriously slow… (The complicated cases can take 6 or 7 years!) It could be worth following up. Or, even more disturbingly, there is the possibility that the Rota received your case, delivered their decision to the US tribunal, and you were never informed… it happens, shamefully enough. But a letter to the Nuncio describing the situation wouldn’t hurt. PM me if you want to talk more on the matter.

 

[e_c]

However, A is in the sad situation - do to her own fault - of now being bound both by her own conscience AND the decision of the tribunal. The best remedy is clearly that A and B reconcile and exchange vows once again.

Also, this should read “B is in the sad situation,” not A.