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

[Richca]

Some of the irregularly married were allowed by JPII to receive private Communion provided cohabitation was necessary for the stability of the marriage (children’s sake) , the old one irretrievably broken down, the Tribunal was unable to nullify (due to merely technical barriers) land a commitment made to live as brother and sister.

I am convinced that AL, and clarifications from the Pope re the Argentinian Bishops Guidelines, demonstrates that Pope Francis is open to discussing a further exception to the above exception.

I respect others if they hold a contrary view…however this is the assumption behind my question here and I am not looking to have that assumption debated here.

That is, for some of the above with the correct disposition and a reasonable expectation that living as brother and sister would also destabilise the marriage…these may possibly, after case by case discernment, be able to have the sacraments of Penance and then Communion also made available to them.

I am seeking theological discussion as to how this changed practice might be explained by traditional moral philosophy/theology concepts.

Possible bases seem to involve discussions over only venial culpability in sins of grave matter, interpretations of what “firmness of intention to change” actually might consist in if access to confession is required, what qualifies as significant “scandal” if communion were public and whether the traditional principle of double effect re scandal can apply here?

With regard to the bolded sentence above, firstly, the irregular couple if civilly remarried are not in a lawful marriage. According to God’s law, they are not in a marriage at all. Secondly, in my opinion, having sexual relations in this unlawful union is what is going to destabilize the relationship between the man and woman in this unlawful union, not the lack of it. Having sexual relations outside of one’s lawful spouse is a grave sin, in this case it is the sin of adultery. Sinning which is going against God’s will does not stabilize anything but causes harm in one’s relationship with God and with one’s neighbor. Adultery is an offense against God and neighbor, an offense against the two greatest commandments of the Law, that is, it is an offense against the first and greatest commandment which is to love God with one’s whole heart and soul, and it is a sin against the second greatest commandment, to love thy neighbor as thyself for God’s sake. The sexual relations in this case is not loving your neighbor but sinning against them as well as causing harm to the children if there are any. For every sin has both a personal and social dimension. It causes harm not only in one’s personal relationship to God and it is against the first and greatest commandment, the love of God, for sin is a turning away from God towards the creature, but also every sin causes a social and universal harm to the whole human community and the Mystical Body of Christ and thus every sin goes against the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself for God’s sake.

As the CCC#1756 says, “one may not do evil that good may result from it.” This in my opinion is simply common sensical and founded on Holy Scripture. God does not expect us to sin or do that which is against his will and which he hates so that good may come of it. God does not nor can he do any moral evil, he is goodness itself without the slightest taint of evil. And God is the first cause of all the good in the world including the good which comes from mankind. God causes good without doing evil and we are suppose to become like him. Jesus and his Blessed Mother Mary also cause good without doing evil, for they are both without the slightest taint of sin and we are suppose to follow and imitate them. God does not will that we should obey his commandments and disobey his commandments at one and the same time. This is a contradiction and God would be contradicting himself and his own nature which he cannot do.

 

[Vico]

With regard to the bolded sentence above, firstly, the irregular couple if civilly remarried are not in a lawful marriage. According to God’s law, they are not in a marriage at all. Secondly, in my opinion, having sexual relations in this unlawful union is what is going to destabilize the relationship between the man and woman in this unlawful union, not the lack of it. Having sexual relations outside of one’s lawful spouse is a grave sin, in this case it is the sin of adultery. Sinning which is going against God’s will does not stabilize anything but causes harm in one’s relationship with God and with one’s neighbor. Adultery is an offense against God and neighbor, an offense against the two greatest commandments of the Law, that is, it is an offense against the first and greatest commandment which is to love God with one’s whole heart and soul, and it is a sin against the second greatest commandment, to love thy neighbor as thyself for God’s sake. The sexual relations in this case is not loving your neighbor but sinning against them as well as causing harm to the children if there are any. For every sin has both a personal and social dimension. It causes harm not only in one’s personal relationship to God and it is against the first and greatest commandment, the love of God, for sin is a turning away from God towards the creature, but also every sin causes a social and universal harm to the whole human community and the Mystical Body of Christ and thus every sin goes against the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself for God’s sake.

As the CCC#1756 says, “one may not do evil that good may result from it.” This in my opinion is simply common sensical and founded on Holy Scripture. God does not expect us to sin or do that which is against his will and which he hates so that good may come of it. God does not nor can he do any moral evil, he is goodness itself without the slightest taint of evil. And God is the first cause of all the good in the world including the good which comes from mankind. God causes good without doing evil and we are suppose to become like him. Jesus and his Blessed Mother Mary also cause good without doing evil, for they are both without the slightest taint of sin and we are suppose to follow and imitate them. God does not will that we should obey his commandments and disobey his commandments at one and the same time. This is a contradiction and God would be contradicting himself and his own nature which he cannot do.

When all three elements are not present then the act or omission is not a mortal sin. The will may be missing in certain situations where the couple are civilly re-married and with children. For example, one of the couple repented so does not willfully sin with marital relations.

Another issue is that between 1983 and 2010 canon law allowed formal defection from the Catholic Church to free one from following Catholic marriage laws.

 

[Thomas_White]

Having sexual relations outside of one’s lawful spouse is a grave sin, in this case it is the sin of adultery.

This is at the core of the controversy. I have asked several times on the thread whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive communion? This often enough has been answered with equivocal replies, typically weighted with adjectives or adverbs. With all due respect, some comments appear as sophisticated attempts at rationalization.

Adultery is adultery is adultery, a grave and mortal sin without qualification. While it is possible to modify the concept of Adultery with exceptions, it is then not Adultery in the sense meant here.

So: Do the exceptions provided by AL permit a person in the state of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist? As I understand it, the answer is in the affirmative. Without question, this represents a change in doctrine.

Can anyone provide a justification for it?

 

[e_c]

This is at the core of the controversy. I have asked several times on the thread whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive communion? This often enough has been answered with equivocal replies, typically weighted with adjectives or adverbs. With all due respect, some comments appear as sophisticated attempts at rationalization.

Adultery is adultery is adultery, a grave and mortal sin without qualification. While it is possible to modify the concept of Adultery with exceptions, it is then not Adultery in the sense meant here.

So: Do the exceptions provided by AL permit a person in the state of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist? As I understand it, the answer is in the affirmative. Without question, this represents a change in doctrine.

Can anyone provide a justification for it?

A person who is in a state of mortal sin in any capacity is not to approach Holy Communion (except in danger of death or some grave necessity, with perfect contrition, etc.). Canon 916.

A person administering the Sacraments (plural) is not to admit one who is in a public state contrary to the Commandments unless he or she manifests the intention not to continue in the act which that state implies. It has also been the discipline not to permit such a person to receive the Eucharist publically so long as that state obtains, even if the act itself is known by the minister not to be occurring - this is to avoid scandal. Such a person could receive privately. It is also permitted for a minister to withhold the Eucharist in private if he has sufficient doubt of the person’s disposition, even due to a private sin. Canon 915.

One binds the communicant, the other binds the minister. They are being conflated in the AL controversy…

I’m still confused about some things in your particular story… I have questions like:

1. Can a respondent appeal even though he or she foregoes participation? (Also, irrelevant for this case but related - could a petitioner appeal even though he or she is granted the annulment?)
2. Does ecclesia supplet apply in the jurisdiction error, whether willful or not, once one of the parties enters another union in accord with the laws of the Church?
3. Is there some kind of statute of limitations contingent upon that application, or is the appeal required to be made before the final declaration itself, or can it be made at any time? (I’m sure this is an easy answer, I just don’t know.)

I have my probable answers, but I would officially be shooting from the hip. I will have to ask someone.

 

[Rau]

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.

The negative precepts of the law - properly understood - have no exceptions. Refer Veritatis Splendor. For example, capital punishment is not an exception. It is not captured by the precept, and never has been, as the Hebrew expression of the precept made clear.

So, to establish your point, you’d need to identify why some seemingly adulterous act falls out side the relevant precept.

 

[Richca]

When all three elements are not present then the act or omission is not a mortal sin. The will may be missing in certain situations where the couple are civilly re-married and with children. For example, one of the couple repented so does not willfully sin with marital relations.

Another issue is that between 1983 and 2010 canon law allowed formal defection from the Catholic Church to free one from following Catholic marriage laws.

It is possible that the act of adultery may be lessoned to a venial sin in some case or no sin at all such as a person who has lost their mind. However, adultery is an intrinsically evil act as the CCC says and St John Paul II taught in Veritatis Splendor founded upon Holy Scripture and the entire Tradition of the Church. In other words, in no cases, circumstances or situations is adultery a good and virtuous act nor can it be made good. It is a bad, evil human act of its very nature regardless of circumstances or intentions. All sin whether mortal or venial is unlawful and harmful as I noted in my previous post. “No one may do evil that good may come of it.”

To repent of adultery is to have the will and intention to not do it again by the help and grace of God. True repentance involves the firm purpose of amendment as Jesus said to the adulterous woman “Go and sin no more.” Yes, we fall and sin and so Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance.

No one can be forced to have sexual relations unless violence is being done to them such as rape. Many christians have chose to sacrifice their lives at the hands of wicked people instead of breaking God’s commandments. So a blanket statement ‘one of the couple repented so does not willfully sin with marital relations’ doesn’t make any sense to me and it needs, I believe, to be definitely qualified. Is the repentant one being raped, sexually assaulted? Is the repentant one being kept under lock and key like being in a prison with hardly a means of escape? Barring violence, there is no lawful excuse for the repentant one to continue to engage in unlawful sexual relations with their partner including for the sake of children involved. This is the constant teaching of the Church as St John Paul II indicates in Veritatis Splendor. According to this teaching, to counsel a repentant person to continue to engage in unlawful and sinful sexual relations appears to me to counsel them to sin and even to cooperate in sin. Such counseling, I believe, is most unbiblical and most unreasonable. Cannot the repentant one of the couple say to the unrepentant one ‘I’m not going to have sex with you anymore, and if you want to leave, then leave and good riddance!’ In fact, at least prior to AL, is this not the proper course of action for the repentant one of the couple according to Holy Scripture, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the constant teaching and tradition of the Church? Jesus said “he who loves father, mother, wife, children, etc. more than me is not worthy of me.” This is in keeping with the first and greatest commandment to love God above all things.

Now, I get that the repentant one of the couple desiring to follow Christ whole heartedly and desiring continence with their unlawful partner who does not want to abstain from sexual relations and says he/she will leave can be a difficult situation at the moment for the repentant partner, even a ‘scarry’ situation. This is where I believe trust in God comes into play analogous to God telling Abraham to leave his own country and kinsfolk and to set off to an unknown country which God was to show him. Depending on the grace that God gives to the repentant partner, the repentant person may set out to the new life in Christ with great joy as probably happened to not a few of the saints. With a lesser grace, the repentant one of the couple may experience feelings of fear or trepidation at the same time feeling in their heart that God is calling them to greater things and trust in him. This is where I believe the Church can and should help, the hierarchy in communion with the faithful. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, that some of the first christians sold all they had and gave to the Apostles to distribute to all those in need. Can we the faithful in communion with the hierarchy not help materially and spiritually those faithful in irregular marriages who want to follow Christ which ends in separation due to an unbelieving partner? The case under discussion here may be compared somewhat to those cases of battered women trying to escape from a bad husband. We have seen stories on television where it can be quite difficult for such women to escape such situations. But with help from other people and a will to get out of the situation and prayer, it is not impossible. And with God nothing is impossible.
The Church’s mission is that of Jesus Christ, namely, the eternal salvation of souls, holiness, and the perfection of charity.

 

[pnewton]

While it is certainly a sensible, charitable and convincing argument to put sceptics on the level of the pharisees …

I did not. I did not even mention Pharisees or skeptics, deliberately not mention the ones accusing because they are not relevant to the discussion. The point is that* Jesus *did not shy away from sinners, the worst of sinners in his day, so there is at least some sense in which the Church, as the body of Christ should not practice shunning at all times. This is why the situation at Corinth is important to understanding what Paul wrote.

 

[pnewton]

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.”

This is interesting history. In the change I see the divine law of holiness and of mercy. Like the discussion above, it is a case where moral truth can be seen in more than one practice, with both similarities and differences.

 

[pnewton]

In an effort to further confuse, the question came up about how many valid marriages can one have at once. While the answer seems obvious, Jacob and David popped into my mind. I discussed with a priest once the problem of converts that come from a religion that practices polygamy, where a many has more than one wife, with children from more than one wife. He says it is very messy.

Just in case you think Catholics in the United States has all the problems.

(And for Don R., yes he wears gray clerical shirts and other native garments.)

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

Well, if there were a judgment by the Rota, it could present yet another quandary. If the judgment were that the first marriage was valid, I could never marry in the Church and that would mean I would never marry again. The remarriage, you see, ended in divorce, and it is over without hope of reconciliation.

The intent of my earlier comments was to illustrate the extreme complexities that may arise in these situations, to the extreme that a person truly might not know what to believe. Based on my personal experience, I have reservations about both AL and the tribunal system itself and believe the provision in question in AL (i.e., footnote 351) has every potential of creating an out of control situation for both the Church and the individuals affected. This is no trivial matter, and clarification ought to be provided. However, it is noted that it appears it may be there in the message to the Arg. bishops.

I will reply to the remainder of your comment by private message.

 

[Vico]

Well, if there were a judgment by the Rota, it could present yet another quandary. If the judgment were that the first marriage was valid, I could never marry in the Church and that would mean I would never marry again. The marriage, you see, ended in divorce, and it is over without hope of reconciliation.

The intent of my earlier comments was to illustrate the extreme complexities that may arise in these situations, to the extreme that a person truly might not know what to believe. Based on my personal experience, I have reservations about both AL and the tribunal system itself and believe the provision in question in AL (i.e., footnote 351) has every potential of creating an out of control situation for both the Church and the individuals affected. This is no trivial matter, and clarification ought to be provided. However, it is noted that it appears it may be there in the message to the Arg. bishops.

I will reply to the remainder of your comment by private message.

Unless, of course, the spouse died.

 

[Thomas_White]

Unless, of course, the spouse died.

Good point.

 

[mlz]

All I can say is that this"practice " of allowing these " exceptions etc simply go against Christ’s explicit views and commandments which regardless of you view them as " rigid" etc are
VERY clearly explained in Both Holy Scripture AND the Catechism of Christ he Church for2,000 years-modernization… this smells of the subtle but clever work of Satan… be careful dear ones----Stay close to His Truth, evil is close trying to deceive His Children! - ask our Blessed Mother to guide us!!!
In His love,
mlz

 

[pnewton]

All I can say is that this"practice " of allowing these " exceptions etc simply go against Christ’s explicit views and commandments which regardless of you view them as " rigid" etc are

Jesus gave no commandment as to reception of communion, apart for the commandment that it was necessary to have life within you. Even that one is understood to have an exception, according to Church doctrine. And “you”, is the Holy Father, so this, “this smells of the subtle but clever work of Satan,” is an inappropriate comment from the lay faithful.

And for the record, the Church already has what could just as easy be called exceptions, unless we are just begging the question again. Our priests understand the limits of doctrine better than any of us. I am sure they will perform admirable in any new role.

 

[Rau]

…Our priests understand the limits of doctrine better than any of us. I am sure they will perform admirable in any new role.

It seems there is a group of cardinals (who raised queries on AL with the Pope) who are wondering what on earth the Pope is trying to say. I am not so sure that there are grounds to anticipate consistent and admirable performance on the part of our priests when not even the Cardinals are clear on the fit of the proposed process with established doctrines.

 

[pnewton]

It seems there is a group of cardinals (who raised queries on AL with the Pope) who are wondering what on earth the Pope is trying to say. I am not so sure that there are grounds to anticipate consistent and admirable performance on the part of our priests when not even the Cardinals are clear on the fit of the proposed process with established doctrines.

I was speaking as a rule, not as an absolute. I am not going down that “group of cardinals” (4) road again after two threads have been locked already.

Wrong thread.

I have hope that they will do well. The Pope does. My own priest is fine. My bishop is doing fine. If there is cause for pessimism that will be for the future. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. In other words, don’t sweat what may or may not be. Be anxious for nothing. God is doing fine.

 

[Rau]

I was speaking as a rule, not as an absolute. I am not going down that “group of cardinals” (4) road again after two threads have been locked already.

Nor do I propose to revisit the topic of those threads. I agree that “as a rule” priests do fine. But “as a rule”, they are not asked to deal with such befuddling and inconsistently understood papal proposals [evidence for that characterisation is the response of those Cardinals - not just my view].

So…the circumstances are not typical of those that one contemplates when speaking “as a rule”. Were they, I’d concur with you.

 

[Vico]

It seems there is a group of cardinals (who raised queries on AL with the Pope) who are wondering what on earth the Pope is trying to say. I am not so sure that there are grounds to anticipate consistent and admirable performance on the part of our priests when not even the Cardinals are clear on the fit of the proposed process with established doctrines.

At least in the US, this is still the message to all Catholics, from USCCB:

As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm

 

[carn]

I did not. I did not even mention Pharisees or skeptics, deliberately not mention the ones accusing because they are not relevant to the discussion. The point is that* Jesus *did not shy away from sinners, the worst of sinners in his day, so there is at least some sense in which the Church, as the body of Christ should not practice shunning at all times. This is why the situation at Corinth is important to understanding what Paul wrote.

If it was not intended ok, but believe me, it can be understood that way.

Besides problem is not association with sinners but what state of mind sinners must have and what changes they must attempt to have a valid confession.

Because the still unanswered question is, how two willing D&R catholics in an invalid “second marriage” could BOTH get a valid confession, if they at the time of confession have intent to have sex again and have knowledge that the Church considers at least officially contrary to Jesus teaching, which already verbatim gives a strong indication, that such sex might be wrong.

 

[carn]

Surely, it happens…

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

I am certain, that current law resolves the situation somewhat sensible (since current law effeictively incorporates 1000+ years of experience about questions “who is validly married with whom?” since on such questions in earlier times war and peace might depend; so people put some brain into it);

i just described the case to shop how difficult things might become if “internal forum” can sometimes somehow overrule tribunal without clear guidance when and how and even with clear guidance things could get tricky.