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

[Blue_Horizon]

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

What was not clear in the Argentinian Draft endorsed by Pope Francis?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I would second that experience.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

I read the lifesite article, and it does present its own agenda.

 

[pnewton]

I read the lifesite article, and it does present its own agenda.

I was curious and looked it up. How did you like the photo St. Peter’s with all the lightening strike. It looked like a something from a Jack Chick tract.

 

[Rau]

What was not clear in the Argentinian Draft endorsed by Pope Francis?

Did you notice the set of questions the 4(?) cardinals put to the pope in a bid to understand what he was trying to say?

 

[Vico]

What was not clear in the Argentinian Draft endorsed by Pope Francis?

This is a translation of The Dubia:

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

 

[Thomas_White]

I was curious and looked it up. How did you like the photo St. Peter’s with all the lightening strike. It looked like a something from a Jack Chick tract.

That photo was suitable for a poster warning of an imminent End Time of fire and brimstone. There also was this as their masthead: “Conservatives for God, Family, Country!” I got the message.

 

[Ender]

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.

What is the principle that justifies as a “pastoral decision” the dismissal of doctrine?* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. (CCC 1650)*
I’ll admit there are a number of doctrines that lend themselves to various interpretations, but this one is about as clear as they come. Exactly how does one go about creating exceptions to this?

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.

The church has always taught there are three specific exceptions to the commandment not to kill; there has never been any ambiguity on this point. The reason there can be exceptions is that killing is not intrinsically evil. Adultery, however, is. This is why there can be no exceptions.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

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.

I understand that, hence why I endevoured to show why execeptionalism should not be applied to the prohibition on adultery.

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.

I would refer you to the Catechism of Trent that I quoted above, which gave such an example: "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. "

I doubt that the Council Fathers of Trent could rightly be called “superstitious subjects”, so I am unclear as to whom you are referring.

 

[Thomas_White]

The church has always taught there are three specific exceptions to the commandment not to kill; there has never been any ambiguity on this point. The reason there can be exceptions is that killing is not intrinsically evil. Adultery, however, is. This is why there can be no exceptions.

Ender

I would not agree that the concept of “intrinsic evil” is settled:

“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good” (Genesis, 1:31).

 

[Ender]

I would not agree that the concept of “intrinsic evil” is settled:

“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good” (Genesis, 1:31).

This is a concept the church commonly uses. Some acts are immoral under all circumstances

• No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. *(Pius XI, Casti Connubii)

Ender

 

[Brendan]

I would not agree that the concept of “intrinsic evil” is settled:

“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good” (Genesis, 1:31).

Evil is not a created entity, rather it is an absence of good. In the same way as a lightbulb does not create darkness. Darkness is an absence of light.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Did you notice the set of questions the 4(?) cardinals put to the pope in a bid to understand what he was trying to say?

Well thats not really your original tack.

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

The new practice FI is allowing is clear enough. Conditions seem defined well enough by the Argentinian Draft that exceptions (abstinence waived) to the exception (Communion for the abstinent) may be contemplated for certain cases.

From memory it would be couples with the right disposition (not flaunting anything), whose former marriages are irretrievable, who have been technically let down by a Tribunal, who have responsibly fulfilled all moral obligations re their original marriage(s), who are otherwise perfectly faithful and involved parishioners, who have a stable present marriage with kids where divorcing is a greater objective evil than staying together and where abstinence is reasonably judged likely to destabilise the relationship (there is a explicit assumption that this is more likely in mixed marriages). Ongoing accompayment is required and the decision is with the PP not the couple.

So these cases are likely not frequent, but “ghosts”?

Its really the specific theology that might be swung into line to back it up that has yet to be clarified and which the 4Cs (allegedly) and objectors here cannot fathom. Though the the 4Cs seem more concerned about Canon Law and definitions of “adultery” than Moral theology.

For myself I do not know the exact theological concepts that Pope Franmcis has in mind but clearly it is not to do with the presence of actual mortal sin as he clearly holds sanctifying grace will be at work in such situations regardless of technicval labels of “adultery”.

To my mind there can only be two or three possible theological explanations:
(a) arguments of objective material sin (ie offences of grave matter) but attenuated imputability. Confession is possible and present unwillingness of the non Catholic party to abstaining does not barr the repentant Catholic party from receiving Communion for the same reason that cooperation in a partner’s contraception is allowed under similar circumstances and does not barr from Communion.
(b) Judgements re whether remarriage is as scandelous as in the past seem reasonable
therefore the practise can change and those judged worthy by the PP may receive.
(c) arguments that the sort of adultery Jesus condemned is not actually taking place, some are more sinned against than sinning.
(d) arguments of the principle of double effect which treat sexual activity in such cases as non intended unavoidable “circumstances” (the 3rd font of a moral act) rather than the object matter (the 1st font)…much like willfully killing a trespasser is not directly intended when protecting one’s family…thus being an evil done (grave matter)…but not a (moral) evil directly chosen. In such cases there is strictly speaking no directly intended adultery.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understood Rau to originally be asking what type of couples are targeted by the exception to the exception. Details just below from memory.

This is a translation of The Dubia:

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What is the principle that justifies as a “pastoral decision” the dismissal of doctrine?

* *

I suppose many faithful Catholics here are humble enough to accept they do not understand everything Ender, especially if they are pastorally and theologically untrained lay persons.

In which case it is not unreasonable to hold that if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Pope through the Synod and his Apostolic Exhortation then maybe what you and a few Cardinals may believe is infallible fixed doctrine…is possibly not in some way you do not yet understand…and which you may never have the capacity to understand.

While you may bridle at this possibility…it is reasonable to judge this as a possibility is it not?

The church has always taught there are three specific exceptions to the commandment not to kill; there has never been any ambiguity on this point.

​

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is a concept the church commonly uses. Some acts are immoral under all circumstances

• No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. *(Pius XI, Casti Connubii)

Ender

And immovable objects cannot be moved…but the point is which things actually are so and in what way?
I have no treason to see a theoretic difference between the 5th and 6th in this regard…except for traditional pastoral practice which just changed with AL.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I am at a loss to understand why you think the personal comparisons of indirect intention fail for adultery. “In the other, one intends simply to commit adultery” is a highly biased personal interpretation of widely divergent situations of “adultery” which unreasonably tries to tar all cases with the same brush.

I could say the same of what you judge to be just lethal use of force…he was really reveling in this opportunity to kill his attacker under the guise of self defence .
Many Cardinals see considerable differences in the types of “adultery” they come across ion their pastotral ministries. Even Jesus distinguished between active and passive adulterers. Perhaps he did so just for the day when AL would come .

I predict that in the near future just that Gospel distinction by Jesus will be used to justify admittance of some irregulars to Communion (even if sexually active) when the theological explanation is eventually evolved. I will remind you when it happens .

 

[Thomas_White]

Its really the specific theology that might be swung into line to back it up that has yet to be clarified and which the 4Cs (allegedly) and objectors here cannot fathom. Though the the 4Cs seem more concerned about Canon Law and definitions of “adultery” than Moral theology.

For myself I do not know the exact theological concepts that Pope Franmcis has in mind but clearly it is not to do with the presence of actual mortal sin as he clearly holds sanctifying grace will be at work in such situations regardless of technicval labels of “adultery”.

To my mind there can only be two or three possible theological explanations:
(a) arguments of objective material sin (ie offences of grave matter) but attenuated imputability. Confession is possible and present unwillingness of the non Catholic party to abstaining does not barr the repentant Catholic party from receiving Communion for the same reason that cooperation in a partner’s contraception is allowed under similar circumstances and does not barr from Communion.
(b) Judgements re whether remarriage is as scandelous as in the past seem reasonable
therefore the practise can change and those judged worthy by the PP may receive.
(c) arguments that the sort of adultery Jesus condemned is not actually taking place, some are more sinned against than sinning.
(d) arguments of the principle of double effect which treat sexual activity in such cases as non intended unavoidable “circumstances” (the 3rd font of a moral act) rather than the object matter (the 1st font)…much like willfully killing a trespasser is not directly intended when protecting one’s family…thus being an evil done (grave matter)…but not a (moral) evil directly chosen. In such cases there is strictly speaking no directly intended adultery.

Perhaps the following quoted comment (#260, taken from the earlier thread “Chicago’s Cupich on divorce: Pastor guides decisions but person’s conscience inviolable.” 10-22-15) would prove helpful, in part, in the effort to find a theological justification for the apparent exception in AL. It does not seem that in the applicable verses of Matthew, Mark or Luke that the marriage partner that is “put away” is considered guilty of adultery should they remarry. The language in the verses is consistent.

“But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32). [emphasis added]

Here it is the wife who is put away (divorced) that is said to be made [forced, required, not of her will] to commit adultery by her husband…Could you show me any verse in Matthew, Mark or Luke where Jesus says that the one who is put away or divorced commits adultery?

 

[Ender]

I suppose many faithful Catholics here are humble enough to accept they do not understand everything Ender, especially if they are pastorally and theologically untrained lay persons.

That I am theologically untrained seems to give more weight to my questions, not less. After all, if the theologically trained are unable to rebut my positions it would seem the most likely reason is that those positions are accurate. It is easy for even the untrained to defend truth; it is error that is difficult to defend regardless of the training.

In which case it is not unreasonable to hold that if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Pope through the Synod and his Apostolic Exhortation then maybe what you and a few Cardinals may believe is infallible fixed doctrine…is possibly not in some way you do not yet understand…and which you may never have the capacity to understand.

This is not rocket science here, and demeaning or dismissing ones opponents hardly constitutes a refutation of their arguments…which all goes to the first point I made.

Can you provide me a clear definition of “intrinsically evil” that is widely accepted and has a long and consistent explanation in Church tradition?

*80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor)

And do you refer to moral evil or physical evil? Killing is clearly an intrinsic physical evil, as is adultery.

It is valid to distinguish moral evils from physical ones, but we are discussing moral evils. Adultery is intrinsically evil morally; killing is not.

Likewise can you provide some references which clearly differentiate between Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not commit adultery re “intrinsic evil”?

Something that is intrinsically evil is forbidden in all circumstances; that’s what the definition means. Clearly then, if the church acknowledges exceptions when killing is allowed it can only be because it is not in fact an intrinsic evil. Regarding adultery, however, she has explicitly categorized that as intrinsically evil.81. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, ** the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture*. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).* (Ibid)

Regardless I personally believe both these Commandments are certainly sins of grave matter. I also believe they can both anchor indirect intentionality as theoretic grounds for rare exceptions…hence allowing for cooperation in evil based on proportionality grounds where the physical good intended is objectively judged greater than the physical evil unavoidably incurred.

What you personally believe is directly contradicted by church doctrine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Regardless I personally believe both these Commandments (killing, adultery) are certainly sins of grave matter.

Let’s be very clear about this: adultery is a grave sin while killing per se is not necessarily a sin at all. You’re not comparing equivalent acts when you compare the two. If you want an accurate comparison it would be between murder and adultery as both of those are grave sins that are intrinsically evil.

I also believe they can both anchor indirect intentionality as theoretic grounds for rare exceptions

What you’re looking for is a way to define some acts of adultery as not adultery just as some acts of killing are not murder. Why don’t you explain what you mean by “indirect intentionality”…and show where the church uses a comparable concept.

…hence allowing for cooperation in evil based on proportionality grounds where the physical good intended is objectively judged greater than the physical evil unavoidably incurred.

Are you arguing that there is a non-imputable form of adultery that is allowed based on the principle of double effect?

Ender