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

[carn]

And for the record, the Church already has what could just as easy be called exceptions, unless we are just begging the question again.

The exception to the requirement for intent to sin no more for a valid confession allowing somehow to harbor plans to repeat the action, that was the sin, is not similar to exceptions known so far.

Our priests understand the limits of doctrine better than any of us.

It is interesting that in the attempt to further develop some pastoral practice related to some doctrine to better cope with the current situation of the world, the age old convincing argument that the laity is simply unable to understand finer points and therefore should be quiet, seems to be used.

Besides AL:
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html
“POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
AMORIS LAETITIA
OF THE HOLY FATHER
FRANCIS
TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY”

is addressed at the laity, therefore it should be also understandable for laity, hence the argument looks somewhat misplaced.

Besides from last paragraph of the respective chapter 8:
“312.  This offers us a framework and a setting which help us avoid a cold bureaucratic morality in dealing with more sensitive issues. Instead, it sets us in the context of a pastoral discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all integrate. That is the mindset which should prevail in the Church and lead us to “open our hearts to those living on the outermost fringes of society”.366** I encourage the faithful who find themselves in complicated situations to speak confidently** with their pastors or with other lay people whose lives are committed to the Lord. They may not always encounter in them a confirmation of their own ideas or desires, but they will surely receive some light to help them better understand their situation and discover a path to personal growth.”

Maybe i am dumb, but this means that if i would be a lay person whose live is commited to the Lord, i should be ready based on the framework of chapter 8 to avoid some cold bureaucratic morality to reply to any other faithful, who is in a complicated situation and who suffers the dire fate of ending up to ask me for advice; for that that hypothetical (*) me should understand this chapter 8; and that hypothetical me would not understand how one could have the intent to sin the more while have defenite intent to have again sex in a non-valid “marriage”.

(* Practically it might not be a problem for me, as maybe i am not one of those lay people whose lives are commited to the Lord; but this shows that laity actually should be able to understand ch. 8 and not just pastors; if ch. 8 is just for pastors, the wording is not optimal.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

TW though I do not completely understand your above description I do feel the immense pain of your sacrifice and your concerns triggered by AL whether it was necessary.
I am on holiday down country and your situation keeps popping into my head along with prayer that God brings you to insight and peace re both AL and your concerns.
I can only add the following dictum of the spiritual life which also keeps popping into my head by way of association I suppose. Martyrs are such not by the strength of their sacrifice but by their love.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

With respect if we must descend to speaking of a “sad” position here it is your understanding of what I stated .

Namely, killing in self defence in either war or at home is acceptable.
But not because of your somewhat tortured position that same is not foreseen and “accidental.”

Likewise alleged adultery may by similar principle be excepted. If you need to call these exceptions “accidental” then I leave you do the maths re active irregulars.

And as mentioned previously, 915 was changed in 1983 … I believe you will find no mention of “mortal sin”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

For the same reason lethal personal self defence does.
I agree that questions of state executions may be a different class of exception and indeed the 5th Commandment may not even be applicable re the State which acts in God’s name.

BTW it’s not me that needs to establish an explanation but Pope Francis.
As per my opening question I take it as a reasonably clear fact for this discussion he does see rare exceptions to alleged adultery in some irregular marriages.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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…

I find this a well balanced approach because you have separated out only the objective component in this discussion, no talk of mortal sin for example.
I think the weakness lies in your implied assumption that God is seriously offended by a prely juridical assessment of the situation which can only ever be a fallible human approximation re what God sees. And there are often objective indicators when our approximations go outside the “sweetspot”.

You state that what destabilize all such relationships is simply the fact of sexual activity in an irregular marriage. This is the very opinion Pope Francis is calling into question though so how can you base an explanation against him simply by opining this in a different form?
He clearly sees sanctifying grace present and at work for some such cases and in the presence of non culpable grave matter…a judgement he believes can be reasonably objectively discerned at times.

You also state that God is always deeply offended by persons who engage in grave matter.
This simply is not true in all cases, especially if attenuated culpability renders the acts or the state venial. Yes the Commandments do specify grave matter, therefore killing is grave matter…yet Catholic marines do not always need to go to confession before Communion do they?

The CCC#1756 says, “one may not do evil that good may result from it.”

Is killing in self defence doing evil that good may result? Of course not.
So let’s apply the same principles to Pope Francis’s exception of the exception and see if it works .

 

[e_c]

Is killing in self defence doing evil that good may result? Of course not.
So let’s apply the same principles to Pope Francis’s exception of the exception and see if it works .

There is no comparison. In the one case, one intends to disable an unlawfully violent body for the good effect of self-preservation while accepting the bad effect of the death of the aggressor, meaning it is not part of his act. In the other, one intends simply to commit adultery. Once it becomes lawful for a private citizen (not someone occupying an office of nature which is ordered to directing and protecting the commonwealth) to try to kill someone for some good, then we are talking about an analogy.

The Holy Father has cited and recited an article from the Summa along this exact line of thinking that there can be “exceptions” from the general principle of the natural law not to commit adultery. This is part of the foundation of the problem, together with an error about sufficient grace, at least one canonical error (915/916 conflation), and a failure to distinguish between acts and habitual intentions to commit those acts.

What a mess.

 

[Thomas_White]

TW though I do not completely understand your above description I do feel the immense pain of your sacrifice and your concerns triggered by AL whether it was necessary.
I am on holiday down country and your situation keeps popping into my head along with prayer that God brings you to insight and peace re both AL and your concerns.
I can only add the following dictum of the spiritual life which also keeps popping into my head by way of association I suppose. Martyrs are such not by the strength of their sacrifice but by their love.

Thanks blue. To perhaps clarify. The first sentence of my quoted comment should have read as follows:

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 second marriage." (boldimg added)

Her first marriage was to yours truly, and this marriage was annulled by the Tribunal. Her subsequent marriage was not.

Again, my intent was only too perhaps illustrate the complexities what may likewise arise with respect to certain provisions of AL. The hope was that it might result in others having a clearer understanding, and resultant questioning, of the possible difficulties that may arise in what seems a rather questionable procedure.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Mlz I would myself prefer to be guided by a lonely Pope in times of dire confusion than by my own interpretation, or that of others, of what tradition and past Popes or allegedly true apparitions of Our Lady said.
The lonely Pope may be mistaken, but until a later Pope corrects him I know God will forgive me because He it is who taught the Church that His Church is always with Peter.

It’s a no brainer, so I sleep well at night and don’t take CAF discussions too personally as if the salvation of the world rested on a single position being the only possibly right one.

 

[Brendan]

With respect if we must descend to speaking of a “sad” position here it is your understanding of what I stated .

Namely, killing in self defence in either war or at home is acceptable.
But not because of your somewhat tortured position that same is not foreseen and “accidental.”

It is acceptable because it is not a violation of the Commandment, per the Council of Trent

Killing In A Just War
In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.
Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

Catechism of Trent, On the 5th Commandment

The exceptions are provided by God Himself, as evidenced by the killing in war done at the specific command of God. Thus the exceptions to the 5th Command originate not from a decision of the Magisterium, but rather as specific Revelation.

On Self Defense, that is sinful, but the sin falls on the one who initiated the attack, not on the defender

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

Evangelicum Vitae

We see this again, in that Pope Francis, and every Pope of modern times, maintains armed guards to defend the person of the Pope, and those around him. Conversely, the Vatican does not maintain a staff dedicated to adultery.

Likewise alleged adultery may by similar principle be excepted. .

Which Council provided exceptions from Adultery? Where did God provide for this exception, as He did in instances regarding the 5th Commandment?

 

[Brendan]

In other words, we know with certitude that there are exceptions to the 5th Command, as we have God as our model. He specifically commanded killing be done at certain times, and, as God cannot contradict Himself, we know that such killings were moral goods.

Likewise we know that there are no exceptions to the Commandment against Adultery, as we have God as our model.

Marriage itself is model of Christ’s relationship to His people ( Song of Songs, Ephesians 5, Rev 19).

Thus we know, that even in view of an unfaithful, even malicious and offensive spouse, God remained faithful to His Covenant. No exceptions.

 

[Rau]

…BTW it’s not me that needs to establish an explanation but Pope Francis.
As per my opening question I take it as a reasonably clear fact for this discussion he does see rare exceptions to alleged adultery in some irregular marriages.

I understood you saw them too? But they are like ghosts. Defying identification.

 

[carn]

Once it becomes lawful for a private citizen (not someone occupying an office of nature which is ordered to directing and protecting the commonwealth) to try to kill someone for some good, then we are talking about an analogy.

Depending upon what exactly one considers to be the meaning of “lawful”, some countries might have such laws.

But this usually would only refer to plank of carneades scenarios:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_of_Carneades

For Germany although the law exempts such a killing only from punishment, it is still consider to be unlawful (meaning one is consider to be somehow similar in that killing to a child committing a crime unable to know right from wrong; though its a bit more in the direction that laws are unable to resolve the situation and hence the state should not punish).

 

[carn]

The lonely Pope may be mistaken, but until a later Pope corrects him I know God will forgive me because He it is who taught the Church that His Church is always with Peter.

I cannot say that for every issue; with some issues i could not claim ignorance, cause i know about them; i could also not claim ignorance if someone claimed 1+1=3 and i would follow him as if i could not realize that its wrong.

Fortunately access to sacraments is none of these; but the “argument pattern” makes me worry, it could one day also influence such an issue.

 

[mlz]

I would highly recommend everyone to read what lifesite.news is reporting. There is a real fear an intimidation happening in the Vatican.
ray:t2:ray:t2:ray:t2:
We are living in difficult days- keep close to the Magesterial teachings of our Holy Catholic Church and the Truth of Sacred Scripture and the Catechism!!! Something very evil is afoot…

In His Love,
mlz

 

[pnewton]

It is interesting that in the attempt to further develop some pastoral practice related to some doctrine to better cope with the current situation of the world, the age old convincing argument that the laity is simply unable to understand finer points and therefore should be quiet, seems to be used.

I didn’t say that we should be quiet. I said we should trust that someone who has spent eight years educated to the priesthood should have the assumption that they know enough to counsel people. As far as others taking this role, I know here there are classes one can take to be trained in spiritual direction. Furthermore, we all had a varying degree of abilities in this regard, some more, others less.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I haven’t answered this as it is beyond my competence. Just at first reading, I would say that it would not be possible in most imaginable cases.

 

[pnewton]

There is no comparison.

What a mess.

Maybe it is not so much a mess as the Holy Father seeing commonalities that you dismiss too readily.

 

[pnewton]

It is acceptable because it is not a violation of the Commandment, per the Council of Trent

The exceptions are provided by God Himself, as evidenced by the killing in war done at the specific command of God. Thus the exceptions to the 5th Command originate not from a decision of the Magisterium, but rather as specific Revelation.

I understand, but I think we need to go further. Why is it an exception, not who defined it. Studying other mortal sin can give insight. Sure God gave several exceptions to “Thou shall not kill,” but it is good to know why he gave those exceptions, just like it is good to know why he gave exceptions on divorce.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is acceptable because it is not a violation of the Commandment, per the Council of Trent

Catechism of Trent, On the 5th Commandment

The exceptions are provided by God Himself, as evidenced by the killing in war done at the specific command of God. Thus the exceptions to the 5th Command originate not from a decision of the Magisterium, but rather as specific Revelation.

On Self Defense, that is sinful, but the sin falls on the one who initiated the attack, not on the defender

Evangelicum Vitae

We see this again, in that Pope Francis, and every Pope of modern times, maintains armed guards to defend the person of the Pope, and those around him. Conversely, the Vatican does not maintain a staff dedicated to adultery.

Which Council provided exceptions from Adultery? Where did God provide for this exception, as He did in instances regarding the 5th Commandment?

Brendan this discussion assumes as a given that Pope Francis regards Communion for some active irregulars as possible in certain circumstances. The discussion is exploring possible traditional theological principles that could explain this pastoral decision.

You do not need to prove that there are exceptions to Thou shall not kill as that is clear.
Self-defence and the corresponding principles of proportionality and indirect seem to be the most applicable.

Re just State killings based on a direct revelation from God - forgive me for not being able to walk with you on that one. When you can demonstrate a sure method for knowing with reasonable certainty when a regal warrior personage has ever truly had such a revelation (as opposed to a self-interested justification acceptable to somewhat superstitious subjects) maybe that can be pushed a little further.

 

[pnewton]

I would highly recommend everyone to read what lifesite.news is reporting.

I have found lifesite news to be weak in both news and life. I have found several anti-catholic articles linked from here to that place. It is no surprise that they want to attack the Vatican.