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

[Vico]

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

Those couples, from AL, are not categorized in overly rigid categories, but are those in situations that are objectively sinful but who are not fully culpable.

298:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.

301:

More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.340

• 339 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121.
• 340 Relatio Finalis 2015, 51.

305:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351

• 351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

Regarding inherent values we have some commentary in Instrumentum Laboris (2014):

1. Some particularly urgent cases, where family relationships are threatened through domestic violence, require supportive action that leads to healing wounds and uprooting their causes. In families where abuse, violence and neglect prevail, neither growth nor a perception of one’s inherent value is possible.

The inherent value of marriage is properly understood as more than a means to extrinsic ends.

Extrinsic: motivated by a desire to gain a reward or avoid an adverse outcome.
Intrinsic: for its own sake rather than for desire for external reward.

 

[Ender]

Those couples, from AL, are not categorized in overly rigid categories, but are those in situations that are objectively sinful but who are not fully culpable.
301:…
305…
note 351…

The questions the four cardinals posed are directly asked of these specific sections of AL.1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305)…Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305)…
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304)…
3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301)…
4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302)…
*5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303)…
*What is being asked for is an explanation of the meaning of these particular passages in light of other passages (notably by JPII in Veritatis Splendor) which they appear to contradict. It is clear that the interpretation of those passages is inconsistent from one bishop to another, let alone from one priest to another. How can this situation be ignored.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Thanks for the thread pointer.
Yes I think there is significant ambiguity and discernment evident in Jesus words to make a case that we cannot tar all “adulterers” with the same brush and even on objective grounds (leaving conscience aside) one doesn’t really need a Tribunal to see this.

From here we could possibly go in two theological directions.

1. Decide whether adultery may in fact be more like stealing…that is, some circumstances may turn the usually grave matter into light matter. So only venial and scandal is the only concern re public Communion.
2. The matter remains grave but, like contracepting and killing, may anchor an indirect intention and be justified on proportionality grounds. In which case no sin at all though scandal re Communion still a concern.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.
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.

You believe I am personally demeaning you for raising the generalised possibility that a reason why some untrained persons cannot accept FI’s new pastoral decisions is because they do not have the capacity to understand any theological justification for it?

Large sectors of intelligent lay Catholics in the Church cannot understand the theology that affirms that contracepting is wrong due to a similar incapacity. What is so insulting this could not be the solution to your difficulties with AL? You are not alone, it doesn’t make you less intelligent to admit this were it true.

If you cannot accept this possibility then you seem to be saying the far likelier solution is that Pope Francis despite all his erudition and pastoral experience and likely guidance by the Holy Spirit has gone rogue and the longer he remains quiet the more likely he is intentionally doing so?

Well, I am sorry Ender, but if I was in your place and was boxed in to this position where I believed only one of the above two views can be correct then I am intelligent enough and objective enough to discern which is the more reasonable solution. Are you?

Surely you must realize that you cannot keep going forward without making a decision between these rather stark choices and just keep sitting on the fence and wringing your hands and murmuring against Pope Francis in some sort of thinly hidden passive aggressive manner. That is not the way to find inner peace.

Do not dream that Francis will back down.
That should be clear by now.

 

[Vico]

The questions the four cardinals posed are directly asked of these specific sections of AL.1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305)…Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305)…
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304)…
3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301)…
4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302)…
*5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303)…
*What is being asked for is an explanation of the meaning of these particular passages in light of other passages (notably by JPII in Veritatis Splendor) which they appear to contradict. It is clear that the interpretation of those passages is inconsistent from one bishop to another, let alone from one priest to another. How can this situation be ignored.

Ender

The Holy See has been known in the past to take a decade or longer to act. Some issues take hundreds of years, for example, the dogmas on original sin from the council of Trent excluded the Blessed Virgin Mary, after which there were three centuries of debate over the Immaculate Conception until definition in 1854.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Those couples, from AL, are not categorized in overly rigid categories, but are those in situations that are objectively sinful but who are not fully culpable.

298:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.

301:

More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.340

• 339 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121.
• 340 Relatio Finalis 2015, 51.

305:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351

• 351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

Regarding inherent values we have some commentary in Instrumentum Laboris (2014):

1. Some particularly urgent cases, where family relationships are threatened through domestic violence, require supportive action that leads to healing wounds and uprooting their causes. In families where abuse, violence and neglect prevail, neither growth nor a perception of one’s inherent value is possible.

The inherent value of marriage is properly understood as more than a means to extrinsic ends.

Extrinsic: motivated by a desire to gain a reward or avoid an adverse outcome.
Intrinsic: for its own sake rather than for desire for external reward.

Yes I would agree with you that the main thrust of AL is about an abiding reduced culpability.
However, Magisterial recognition of the flaws of Tribunals which allows continued presumption of the original bond when it is reasonably clear this is not the case, suggests many of those who still personally believe they were free to marry…may in fact be right.
While FI does not emphasize this approach in AL I believe he implicitly accepts it where he speaks of conscience in the discernment process so such a theological approach should not be discounted in some rarer cases AL has in mind.

 

[Rau]

You believe I am personally demeaning you for raising the generalised possibility that a reason why some untrained persons cannot accept FI’s new pastoral decisions is because they do not have the capacity to understand any theological justification for it?

We should note 2 things: 1) Lack of capacity has not been established; 2) It is not only the untrained who point to difficulties in AL.

Large sectors of intelligent lay Catholics in the Church cannot understand the theology that affirms that contracepting is wrong due to a similar incapacity.

Cannot understand, or simply reject? In any event, the reasoning viz a viz contraception is not criticized on grounds of inconsistency with other doctrine.

[Ender] seems to be saying the far likelier solution is that Pope Francis despite all his erudition and pastoral experience and likely guidance by the Holy Spirit has gone rogue and the longer he remains quiet the more likely he is intentionally doing so?

Or is he saying that AL seems to contradict other doctrine on this specific point, and, like the 4 cardinals who are thinking the same thing, further clarification is required to dispel that appearance?

Do not dream that Francis will back down.
That should be clear by now.

This is not required. Only clarity. And if 4 cardinals (who I’m fairly sure have not gone rogue) are asking for the same thing, the theologically untrained need not feel “boxed in” to any position.

 

[Ender]

You believe I am personally demeaning you for raising the generalised possibility that a reason why some untrained persons cannot accept FI’s new pastoral decisions is because they do not have the capacity to understand any theological justification for it?

Two things: (1) Yes. The concepts are not that complicated. If they were clearly explained most people would have no trouble at all understanding them. (2) You haven’t begun to provide any explanation at all. You’re position is full of supposition, what ifs, and “I’m trained, you’re not, so I must be right.”

I can explain my position and defend it with citations specific to the point being discussed. So far you’ve done neither.

Ender

 

[commenter]

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.

I think 100% of the Catholics I have known who have gotten divorced would fit into the first sentence above. Just ask them. None of them describe their prior marriages as retrievable, none say ignore moral obligations, none say they are lax parishioners, none describe their current marriage and kids as unstable, etc, etc.

There is no reason to believe the Marriage Tribunal is less compassionate, less open minded, less able to consider pastoral factors, or more bound by “technical” limitations than any alternate forum, discussion session, gut feeling, or whatever. Why would they be more likely to “let down” people than someone else?

The reason the Marriage Tribunal exists at all is because of Christ. Keep in mind popes, including Pope Francis, emphasized their importance. Who in the Church would have more competence in subjects related to marriage than the Marriage Tribunal? Why would you say the (new) couple themselves, or them and a few buddies, or them and a cooperative random priest they find (after talking to 11 other priests) are less likely to make a mistake than Christians who are specifically trained and experienced in this area?

Would you say a priest who has a little training or experience in health care would be a better chaplain than the priest-and-team, specially trained and experienced in health care, who work in hospital full time? Would you say priest who is trained and experienced has technical limitation?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Two things: (1) Yes. The concepts are not that complicated. If they were clearly explained most people would have no trouble at all understanding them. (2) You haven’t begun to provide any explanation at all. You’re position is full of supposition, what ifs, and “I’m trained, you’re not, so I must be right.”

I can explain my position and defend it with citations specific to the point being discussed. So far you’ve done neither.

Ender

Noone doubts your facility at “explaining” Ender.
I intentionally am looking at your difficultieswith a telescope not a microscope so of course I am speaking principles and generalities.

The concern I observe is that you seem to overly equate “consistent explanation” with truth.
That is fallacious.
The ability to logically explain current reality only provides one a consistent working hypothesis.
It does not guarantee that this hypothesis is actually what operates behind reality.
It is entirely possible for a current reality to be explained by two very different mutually exlcusive hypotheses.

In the end the correct one (if either are correct) is proven by predictive ability or ability to consistently explain new phenomena.

You clearly have a problem trying to to fit AL pastoral decisions into your current hypotheses/model/theology (call it what you will) of how the Church operates.

From my perspective you are clearly boxed in.
You must eventually make a decision…either Pope Francis has the wrong understanding of what the Church is about, or you do.

This observation itself has nothing to do with you being an untrained and pastorally inexperienced lay person. Neither has it anything to do with me being a somewhat theologically and pastorally trained lay person. Compared to the training and experience and charism of the Pope we are both novices here.

But it is simply an objective logical judgement of the clear enough facts by use of reason and intelligence that both you and I possess that you and Pope Francis have intrinsically opposed understandings of traditional Church teaching and theological concepts.

Whether your model is consistent or in fact flawed doesn’t really matter - it is clearly different from the Pope’s. His model may be consistent too. It might even be flawed.

But it doesn’t matter for the situation you find yourself in is clearly at odds with the Pope’s model of the Church under the hood.
This is something we both agree on, surely?

Given this, if you ever get off the fence (which you must eventually do to find inner peace) then you must make a decision.

You must judge whether Pope Francis is in serious error…or you simply lack the capacity to understand what is going on and ride it out in effective intellectual darkness.

If you decide Pope Francis is in serious error then you must next decide whether he is obstinately so the longer he remains silent or, God forbid for you, becomes more explicit in his position. If he proves obstinate you must conclude he is a heretic. Do you really feel your theology is strong enough to sincerely make that decision in certain conscience?

If you are the intelligent and objective person you claim to be then I do not see how you can disagree with my attempted objective and logical assessment of your predicament.

That I disagree with your limited understanding of Church theology, that I have a M.Theol/Phil, that I have 10 years voluntary pastoral experience in the Church, that I am a design engineer by employment, that I have three other full time degrees in completely different fields etc etc has nothing to to with this observation re your predicament.

Sure it may be logically consistent for you to say the Pope is in error and you are not.
But is it likely? Is it real? Is it an objective judgement or a highly subjective one on your part? I don’t need to be an educated person to give you my answer to this question. All it takes is a bit of self-knowledge that even a young child might possess.
For myself, even for all my training, should I be in your position I would not have the balls to pit my views against the Pope before God.

Maybe if I was a Cardinal I could do so in certain conscience…but even then I wouldn’t play to the lay gallery as our Four Cardinals are doing.

 

[Rau]

I am not certain the assessed validity of the original marriage is of essential significance in the AL reasoning. [But others may be able to correct me on that point.]. If discernment with the PP was the better way to determine validity, that may as well become the standard process. It seems that AL seeks to view that issue as water under the bridge, with the present set of circumstances and options determining the situation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think 100% of the Catholics I have known who have gotten divorced would fit into the first sentence above. Just ask them. None of them describe their prior marriages as retrievable, none say ignore moral obligations, none say they are lax parishioners, none describe their current marriage and kids as unstable, etc, etc.

Not quite sure what you mean here.
I think you are saying most appellants declined reckon they were hard done by just as most crims say they are innocent?

By being reasonably judged as “technically let down” I am referring to the private moral certainties of the officials involved NOT the views of the appellants themselves.

It is a well agreed position, even Pope Benedict since the late 1990s lamented that Tribunals, being human institutions requiring a high level of objective evidence, regularly let worthy appellants down.

Pope Francis is aware of this hence his use of less formal and less evidentially stringent processes (ie Accompanyments) for admitting failed yet worthy irregulars to Communion.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the thread pointer.
Yes I think there is significant ambiguity and discernment evident in Jesus words to make a case that we cannot tar all “adulterers” with the same brush and even on objective grounds (leaving conscience aside) one doesn’t really need a Tribunal to see this.

From here we could possibly go in two theological directions.

1. Decide whether adultery may in fact be more like stealing…that is, some circumstances may turn the usually grave matter into light matter. So only venial and scandal is the only concern re public Communion.
2. The matter remains grave but, like contracepting and killing, may anchor an indirect intention and be justified on proportionality grounds. In which case no sin at all though scandal re Communion still a concern.

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that venial results from grave matter when missing full knowledge or complete consent, and AL cases focus on lack of full knowledge or complete consent.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

 

[Rau]

…Pope Francis is aware of this hence his use of less formal and less evidentially stringent processes (ie Accompanyments) for admitting failed yet worthy irregulars to Communion.

…then is this not, in fact, another means of declaring the original marriage invalid? The adoption of a new standard to judge validity?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We should note 2 things: 1) Lack of capacity has not been established; 2) It is not only the untrained who point to difficulties in AL.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between theologic difficulties and pastoral practice difficulties.

As I assumed at the start of my thread here - there is no lack of clarity or difficulty that I objectively see in AL thanks to the clarity provided by the Argentinian Draft.
We have a new pastoral practice - there is an exception to the the abstinence exception re admittance to Communion.

If contributors here cannot accept even this clarity then by all means start another thread topic and lets discuss that there.

Therefore, it is understandable that those who cannot easily digest this bitter pastoral pill ask for theological assistance in doing so. This is where I see the Cardinals, and indeed Ender coming from.

For myself, I see must fertile theological soil two particular standard theological concepts which could be used to clarify this new pastoral practise. Ender cannot see it which is fine, he just has to go cold turkey on this one if that is the case.

But no, it seems he does not want to swallow this bitter pill unless he gets theological sweetness.
He also seems to go even further and say this is not actually medicine at all, he knows better than the doctor and wants to advise other people who may benefit from it, not to take the pill. The doctor has made a mistake.

Hence I suggest to Ender, regardless of whether I am a medical professional or not, that he is certainly isn’t one. That is a purely objective observation.

I suggest he is well boxed in if he feels so strongly he must act out in this manner.
I also suggest there are other viable ways of looking at the difficulty he clearly has and which cannot be denied.
And that is… he personally does not have the capacity to understand any reason the doctor may provide as to why this bitter pill (at least for Ender) is actually good for treating some cases on the battle field.

Of course I cannot prove this actually is the case with Ender (or the Cardinals, who are a different case) and I do not need to.

I simply put it forward as an objectively likely possibility that Ender seems unwilling to contemplate privately in his own heart. One is rarely objective in judging one’s own involvement in a situation - we all know that if we have any objective self-knowledge at all.

Cannot understand, or simply reject? In any event, the reasoning viz a viz contraception is not criticized on grounds of inconsistency with other doctrine.

The simple point I make is that the more faithful Catholic would fmore likely look to their own theological incapacities than the Pope’s when faced with a “new” teaching they cannot understand.

Or is he saying that AL seems to contradict other doctrine on this specific point, and, like the 4 cardinals who are thinking the same thing, further clarification is required to dispel that appearance?

A time comes when all the explaining in the world will not enlighten those who do not have the capacity to understand.
The pastoral direction is set, if some are unable or unwilling to see or try and discover a possible theological justification for it at the moment then they will just have to swallow the new direction without the sweetness they seek. Such strongly loyal persons are surely capable of the extra faith in the Pope required to do this?

Only clarity. And if 4 cardinals (who I’m fairly sure have not gone rogue) are asking for the same thing, the theologically untrained need not feel “boxed in” to any position.

Faith is an absolute, intellectual clarity is not - though it comes in time.
The Annunciation is a good example of what may be required of the Cardinals…to say nothing of us untrained lay persons surely.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that venial results from grave matter when missing full knowledge or complete consent, and AL cases focus on lack of full knowledge or complete consent.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

I think most are aware of this attenuated culpability angle as it was discussed deeply in the locked thread that gave rise to this one. As it was well known in the time of Veritas Splendor I am assuming something more is needed if we are to justify Pope Francis going further than what JPII allowed…ie the exception of his exception.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

You will have to forgive me for not finding any of your reasons to date convincing.
BTW if “sin” is defined as any offence against the law of God…then clearly all killing is sinful…even if not morally sinful. The law of God clearly states, Thou shall not kill does it not?
Or do you disagree? I can be just as pedantic as you if that is the silly way you want to discuss these matters:blush:.
It is silly to discuss this way, a deeper level of theological understanding is needed than just arguing literal quotes on adultery or killing surely.

You want people to concede killing is somehow less evil than adultery…sorry, but killing comes before adultery and stealing. If killing and stealing admit of exceptions that significantly change the severity of those grave acts then I am willing to reassess traditional pastoral judgements of some acts of adultery too. Just as Pope Francis has.

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.

Possibly, just as some contracepting is not a contraceptive act. But not quite like this. Just as some killings are not moral acts of killing (by reason of indirect intent) so too I am yet to see why the same cannot hold for adultery.
I think it is very clear Jesus distinguished between at least three types of adulterers…and not all of them were unworthy of his gaze.

Why don’t you explain what you mean by “indirect intentionality”…and show where the church uses a comparable concept

. I might if I felt you were actually asking in good faith instead of taking a fixed position and simply baiting a position you may not have the capacity to quite understand yet.

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

When you have a less dispeptic disposition on the question I would like to discuss this further with you. At the moment I suggest it will be a waste of time for both of us.
Obviously you know I currently see a perfect analogy with what the CCC says re lethal self defence. This of course is justified by TPODE.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

*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)

Good quote, but you have not answered my challenge though.
Find a tradition that consistently says this about all forms of adultery.
One swallow doth not make the Spring.

Adultery is intrinsically evil morally; killing is not

.
I am aware this is your personal view…if you could just provide clear and explicit for that you might be more convincing. The Commandment at face value is agin you re non State killings.
Directly intended personal killings are always and everywhere morally evil…even the CCC makes that clear . Just like personal adultery (I am assuming we do not need to address ritualistic State cultic prostitution which is unlikely analogous to justified State killings).
The question then is whether cases of indirect adultery are able to be reasonably identified…just as such can be done for killing in lethal self defence. I believe Pope Francis would not be averse to exploring this theological possibility.

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.

You have hence gone off tack here. Why do you make up inferences like this when there are alternative explanations that better harmonise with clear teachings.

Direct personal killings are of course forbidden always and everywhere. But indirect personal killings are not. Check the CCC, it’s very clear on this point.
Therefore just because some offence is intrinsically evil does not mean that it cannot be indirectly chosen for proportionate reasons.
The Church as far as I know has given the ok on this for the 5th and has never actually raised this as an issue for the 6th…that is until AL.

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)
What you personally believe is directly contradicted by church doctrine.
The fact that neither killing nor murder made it into this alleged list of intrinsically evil acts does destroy it’s credibility I would have thought?

Also the somewhat obvious observation that many of the above do make it to heaven. Not all stealing is grave intrinsic evil for a start…which means that petty thieves may well enter heaven due to venial only sinning.
So please spare as the fundamentalist Scripture quotes as if they somehow prove your views.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I know I’ve brought this up at other points in this debate, but I would like this explained, please.

Not all that long ago, as far as Church history is concerned, around AD1530, there lived a King of England. This King was known to be a staunch defender of the Catholic Faith and he ruled a land which had long been faithful --a land which had even supplied an English Pope at one time.

This King had been married for 20 years to a good and faithful Catholic queen. When that queen was only 15, she had been married to this King’s older brother, but he was likewise only 15, and sickly. They did not consummate the marriage, and the young prince died only 6 months later. This king and the princess (now queen) married, had several children, but only one daughter survived infancy.

The king’s conscience began to bother him. Though he loved the queen and had thought himself free to marry, was he really free? She had been married to his brother --and now she was ‘barren’–that was the curse of those who married a brother’s wife, the Bible said so. Had he been free? Was that marriage truly valid in the eyes of God.

Over years (and with the impetus of a woman who demanded marriage before any kind of sexual relations, i.e. no mistress she) this king was convinced that his first marriage was invalid. He married the second woman quietly and announced that she was now his lawful wife, not the other woman.

The entire country of England was wrenched into Protestantism, and many people lost their lives, including two saints of the Church, St Thomas More and St John Fisher, over the issue of whether this was indeed a lawful marriage.

Now it appears that, in the context of this new AL, that was all for nothing.

Because Henry quite specifically mentions that it was his conscience that had determined the validity of his marriage to Anne, and the invalidity of that to Catherine.
AND Henry had not one, but two prelates, Cardinal Wolsey and later Archbishop Cramner, who concurred with him.

If AL had been in place in 1530, Henry could have quite successfully used it. He was himself well versed in theology, his conscience was paramount, and he had prelates in concurrence every step of the way.

If there is an attempt to read AL as permitting those in an irregular union which has not been judged valid by the Church and there is no chance (and the argument would have been used that, with Catherine’s nephew as Holy Roman Emperor and holding the Pope as a hostage, the Church ‘could not’ pronounce as it was under duress) of the Church being able to judge it, and if what is needed for those people to receive the sacraments, which would by definition establish them as being in full union/communion with the Catholic Church, is ‘primacy of conscience, self-determination of validity, and the guidance of a qualified prelate’, then Henry and Anne were in the right all along, and St Thomas More and St John Fisher died for a lie.

 

[Thomas_White]

The reason the Marriage Tribunal exists at all is because of Christ. Keep in mind popes, including Pope Francis, emphasized their importance. Who in the Church would have more competence in subjects related to marriage than the Marriage Tribunal? Why would you say the (new) couple themselves, or them and a few buddies, or them and a cooperative random priest they find (after talking to 11 other priests) are less likely to make a mistake than Christians who are specifically trained and experienced in this area?

A spouse experiences every moment of a marriage and its complex dynamics and knows his/her state of mind at the time of the marriage vows. I do not believe that any member of a marriage tribunal could possibly better know the existential validity of a marriage than a person who experiences it.