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

[Tantum_ergo]

I answered the only question that can be answered. Speculative history is empty of relevant data and has no bearing on anything. It only reveals the thoughts of the one speculating as what did not happen is always impossible to know. Therefore, I have found it useless in understanding moral theology. I would rather concentrate on what is, that is reality. Historical context is vital and should never be disregarded.

Bathsheba was a widow. David was still married. His polygamy did not kill his relationship with God.

Ah, you are referring to his polygamy. I was confused by your reference to Bathsheba alone, because there were others, such as Abigail, whom David married before he married Bathsheba.

I am pretty certain that the whole polygamy issue (not to mention the fact that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was his half-sister) has been addressed by the Church and the Early Church Fathers, and again, I would hold the same position as above: Obviously at point X in human time, the doctrine of ‘one man and one woman’, even as noted in the Talmud with the story of Adam and Eve, was not specifically known to be the only true marriage. Thus, since Abraham, David, etc. were not aware of the correct teaching, they could not be held at fault for not abiding. And again, obviously, had it been known to them, then they would have been sinful for not abiding by it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

other poster:
" only yesterday another recipient of your uncharity politely remonstrated they were 67"
end

from Commenter: I wasn’t remonstrating about being called “hon”, I meant it in humor. As a 67 year old Northern male, I don’t mind it at all, it was very nice.

Thank you, Commenter. I probably was however at fault, though not meaning to be so. I wonder, does that mean it was only a ‘venial sin’ of grave matter?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In regards to the second and third sentence, you are doing a form of ‘eisegesis’ on what I actually said in post #100. Two, I can’t make heads or tails of what your talking about here, its ambiguous. Consequently, I’ll have to take this as a non-argument and discard it. Three, you begin with ‘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’ and then in the next sentence contradict this assessment with ‘I think the weakness lies in your implied assumption that God is seriously offended…’ Please make up your mind or better yet stick with what I actually posted and said.

Not exactly what I said. What I did say is that deliberate sinning whether mortal or venial does not produce good neither for oneself, one’s relationship with God, or one’s relationship with one’s neighbor. It’s contrary to the principle “one may not do evil that good may result from it” (Romans 3:8). Sinning is an offence both to the love of God and love of neighbor as well as an offense to love for oneself whether it is mortal or venial. God draws good out of evil so sometimes he permits us to fall to humble us and to rely more on him for without him we can do nothing.

“He has not commanded anyone to be ungodly, and he has not given anyone permission to sin” (Sirach 15:20).

God accomplishes all good in the world and in us without doing moral evil or sinning nor can he do moral evil as he is all good and goodness itself. We are made in God’s image and likeness and are called to be like him. It makes absolutely no sense that God would want us to do evil or sin, that which he commands us not to do, for good as he himself does no such thing nor can he. Thus, the principle “one may not do evil that good may result from it” or by doing such evil to avoid harm. Acting against this principle is out of touch with reality.

I’m not exactly sure what you are referring to here. The principle “one may not do evil that good may result from it” and the Church’s teaching on moral absolutes (cf. the CCC and St John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor) are not opinions in my belief and understanding of the catholic faith but the truth and the perennial (if not infallible as well) doctrinal teaching of the Church. Theological opinions from some quarters of catholic theologians on morals such as proportionalism, consequentialism, fundamental option, etc. are just that opinions. However, St John Paul II teaches in Veritatis Splendor that these systems are incompatible with the catholic faith, divine revelation, Sacred Tradition and are to be rejected as erroneous and dangerous to the faith.

I did? You are engaging again in a form of ‘eisegesis.’ Please reread post #100. You begin your post with ‘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.’ But now state from my understanding of your words ’ always deeply offended’ (words which I didn’t use) that now I’m talking about actual mortal sin! I do not believe the post I made was that contradictory or confusing.

Self defense is not the same species of act as murder. Legitimate self defense is a good human act, murder is a bad and sinful human act. What you are really asking here is whether there are any cases where it is lawful to murder or deliberately kill an innocent person. The Church says no which is in accord with the commandment ‘Thou shall not kill.’

Merry Christmas all!

This was over a week ago so the momentum has been lost sorry.
I find the “…its ambiguous… i will have to take this as a non argument and discard it” an interesting way of discussing issues. You make the process sound like a mortgage interview with a bank manager and if all the right papers aren’t in place and everything very clear that applicant and matter can be ignored. For myself I see truth as something mutually pursued for the love of it not for defending a set position against infidels who cannot possibly be “right”… in which case I would resolve my colleague’s perceived ambiguity by advising my most sensible take on the matter and going forward in good faith from there.

Re the proportionalism a little research should reveal that Catholic Tradition does accept proportionality arguments when TPODE is in play. My posts since the post you quote make that rather clear surely?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thank you for providing this. It isn’t difficult to discern the approach JPII was warning against in some of the interpretations given to AL.* cultural tendencies… in which freedom and law are set in opposition to each other and kept apart, and freedom is exalted almost to the point of idolatry — lead to a “creative” understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Church’s tradition and her Magisterium.
*

• No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.
  *As the cardinals asked: “do we still regard as valid” what JPII said? Really, is this some kind of trick question that can’t be answered yes or not?

Ender

I think it’s fairly clear AL and VS are at first pass objectively irreconcilable re Communion practices for exceptions of the exception. That is assumed in my original question here I suppose.

That I think should alert us to the obvious…that if sucessive Popes condone irreconcilable practices then the positions are likely relative not absolute, prudential not infallible.

Sure it is possible one Pope’s position is infallible and the other not.
But if we go that way then the upper hand it seems is with Pope Francis because JPII is not here to disagree with Francis. The longer Francis allows his directives to go forward, or more so if he makes more affirmative statements then the more obvious it becomes that his position is effectively the infallible one. Sure a later Pope could reverse his directives…but that would just lend weight to our first proposition…that the issue is simply prudential and wise sincere Popes may hold contrary views.

Which of course is why we are all validly discussing a single theology understanding that allows for such contrary practices despite JPII’S apparent personal views agin Pope Francis.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A. I would be an older sister (age 60). Thank you.
B. Psych 101? That’s nice. I remember that class. Abnormal psych was interesting too. Lots of neuroses and psychoses and such. Of course, since I am not a physician nor a psychologist myself, I would think constant references back to my freshman year classes might lead one to suppose I was actually considering myself qualified to ‘judge’ others; something the forum discourages, and rightly so.
C. Regarding 'one explanation is not enough, etc. “Pot, meet kettle.” IOW, what you ‘see’ with others might be equally what others see in you.
D. Guess southern expressions, which will crop up with us older ones over the holidays when we have lots of family over, and have been used to addressing our loved ones when they are not exactly being the easiest to deal with, and rather than being tempted to address them with more formal ‘you, sir, are mistaken’ etc lest one appear ‘rigid’, should be eschewed by me in future. Thank you for your contribution, my dear sir.

After all the smoke is filtered out I am afraid I cannot find any objective response to my comments left to consider sorry. Yes I consider that what I observe as possible in others may also apply to myself if that is your basic gist.
I am not sure some of my naysayers are equally catholic in this regard if the bristling rejoinder are anything to go by.

It is not always easy for older brother types to understand why dad let’s our younger brother get away with what we regard as blue murder. Yet Jesus regularly loved eating with grave sinners he clearly regarded as worthy of his company. How easily we forget how he shocked religious sensitivities and customary applied practices of his day.
I too am an oldest brother.

 

[Rau]

…Catholic Tradition does accept proportionality arguments when TPODE is in play.

Assuming a good intention and a good moral object.

 

[Rau]

I think it’s fairly clear AL and VS are at first pass objectively irreconcilable re Communion practices for exceptions of the exception. That is assumed in my original question here I suppose.

That I think should alert us to the obvious…that if sucessive Popes condone irreconcilable practices then the positions are likely…prudential…

That’s an interesting take. That the matter is not doctrinal, but a matter for judgement. I believe the 4 cardinals perceive AL to appear to be at odds with doctrine.

Sure it is possible one Pope’s position is infallible and the other not.

I’ve never thought of either of the positions viz a viz communion as being infallible. AL certainly does not meet the threshold. Elements of VS are doctrinal I believe, and it is where AL appears to be odds with that that we seek an explanation of why it is not (since, surely, it does not intend to contradict that doctrine).

The longer Francis allows his directives to go forward, or more so if he makes more affirmative statements then the more obvious it becomes that his position is effectively the infallible one.

Short of a council or ex Cathedra statement (both seem unlikely), this matter will not become infallibly taught in the lifetime of Francis. I’m not even sure that such a matter is of a kind that could ever be that. [PS: I don’t know what “effectively infallible” means. Is that different to “infallible”.]

 

[Ender]

I think it’s fairly clear AL and VS are at first pass objectively irreconcilable re Communion practices for exceptions of the exception.

The contradictions are much deeper than merely “communion practices”. If the expansive interpretation of AL is valid then they differ at a fundamental level. They differ at the level of doctrine.

That I think should alert us to the obvious…that if successive Popes condone irreconcilable practices then the positions are likely relative not absolute, prudential not infallible.

You are too quick to dismiss the possibility that one of the positions is correct and the other mistaken. Nor is it accurate to suggest that papal statements are either prudential or infallible as the entire content of the Ordinary Magisterium lies between the two.

Sure it is possible one Pope’s position is infallible and the other not.

It is not a question of infallibility but of accuracy. If the two positions differ then at least one of them is wrong, unless you see this as nothing more than a matter of personal preference like choosing chocolate over vanilla. We’re talking error here.

Which of course is why we are all validly discussing a single theology understanding that allows for such contrary practices despite JPII’S apparent personal views agin Pope Francis.

JPII’s “personal” view is nothing less than his understanding of Scripture and the totality of church doctrine. If his explanations are merely prudential judgments then it is hard to know what one could consider doctrine.

Ender

 

[commenter]

I think it’s fairly clear AL and VS are at first pass objectively irreconcilable re Communion practices for exceptions of the exception. That is assumed in my original question here I suppose.

That I think should alert us to the obvious…that if sucessive Popes condone irreconcilable practices then the positions are likely relative not absolute, prudential not infallible.

Sure it is possible one Pope’s position is infallible and the other not.
But if we go that way then the upper hand it seems is with Pope Francis because JPII is not here to disagree with Francis.** The longer Francis allows his directives to go forward, or more so if he makes more affirmative statements then the more obvious it becomes that his position is effectively the infallible one.** Sure a later Pope could reverse his directives…but that would just lend weight to our first proposition…that the issue is simply prudential and wise sincere Popes may hold contrary views.

Which of course is why we are all validly discussing a single theology understanding that allows for such contrary practices despite JPII’S apparent personal views agin Pope Francis.

What you are describing strengthens the argument for the infallibility of JP II, not Francis. JP II’s statements have stood for a few decades, and are closely consistent with statements by earlier popes, and consistent with long practice.

Sometimes a statement is issued, intended to be clear. But then it becomes apparent it was not clear, based on (name removed by moderator)ut from theologians, and wildly contradictory responses from dioceses and national hierarchies. Based on this new situation, not foreseen at the time the statement was issued, it is reasonable to ask the papacy for a clarification.

 

[Vico]

Thank you for providing this. It isn’t difficult to discern the approach JPII was warning against in some of the interpretations given to AL.* cultural tendencies… in which freedom and law are set in opposition to each other and kept apart, and freedom is exalted almost to the point of idolatry — lead to a “creative” understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the teaching of the Church’s tradition and her Magisterium.
*

• No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.
  *As the cardinals asked: “do we still regard as valid” what JPII said? Really, is this some kind of trick question that can’t be answered yes or not?

Ender

I think the answer would be yes to dubia 2 through 5. For 1 there are two questions:

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 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” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29.

Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?

I believe that the answer to 1a would be No.

In AL a teaching that is not new is that “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”.

Now, if the Church will not grant absolution to them even though subjectively not culpable, there only recourse to remain in grace is an act of perfect contrition, but they would not be able to receive the Eucharist.

How to answer 1b though?

What are “the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29.”

1. • Familiaris Consortio was given in 1981 (St. Pope John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation)
   • Reconciliatio et Paenitentia was given in 1984 (St. Pope John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation)
   • Sacramentum Caritatis was given in 2007 (Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Exhortation)
   Sacramentus Caritatis has addressed reception of the Eucharist not the sacrament of reconcilliation, but is does imply it in context:
   
   Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard.
   
   FC 81 covers both reconciliation and communion:
   Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
   
   And also, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia:
   
   For all those who are not at the present moment in the objective conditions required by the sacrament of penance, the church’s manifestations of maternal kindness, the support of acts of piety apart from sacramental ones, a sincere effort to maintain contact with the Lord, attendance at Mass and the frequent repetition of acts of faith, hope, charity and sorrow made as perfectly as possible can prepare the way for full reconciliation at the hour that providence alone knows.

 

[Ender]

I think the answer would be yes to dubia 2 through 5. For 1 there are two questions…

Let me start by saying it is nice to finally have someone address the actual questions, whether we agree or disagree on how they should be answered.

I believe that the answer to 1a would be No.

Regarding question 1 (and your question 1a), I agree, the answer surely must be no. That said, if 1b (does note 351 admit of exceptions) is yes, then that contradicts what we have just said about 1a. If a divorced person is bound by a valid marital bond then by definition any sexual relations with his second partner is adultery.

It seems the open question is: are there cases where the existence of doubt about the validity of the first marital bond justifies sexual relations such that they do not constitute adultery? I don’t believe there is any possibility of saying person X is committing adultery but in his unique circumstance it is justified.

It may be possible to claim that even though a tribunal has not ruled on his case, his certainty about the nullity of the first marriage justifies his actions. I’m not at all convinced this is valid, but I am quite convinced that there are no exceptions to the ban on adultery.

Ender

 

[Vico]

Let me start by saying it is nice to finally have someone address the actual questions, whether we agree or disagree on how they should be answered.
Regarding question 1 (and your question 1a), I agree, the answer surely must be no. That said, if 1b (does note 351 admit of exceptions) is yes, then that contradicts what we have just said about 1a. If a divorced person is bound by a valid marital bond then by definition any sexual relations with his second partner is adultery.

It seems the open question is: are there cases where the existence of doubt about the validity of the first marital bond justifies sexual relations such that they do not constitute adultery? I don’t believe there is any possibility of saying person X is committing adultery but in his unique circumstance it is justified.

It may be possible to claim that even though a tribunal has not ruled on his case, his certainty about the nullity of the first marriage justifies his actions. I’m not at all convinced this is valid, but I am quite convinced that there are no exceptions to the ban on adultery.

Ender

One case. The couple qualifies, but fails to maintain the continence, but the confesses and reaffirms the brother and sister status. Now, that would be accompaniment.

 

[Ender]

One case. The couple qualifies, but fails to maintain the continence, but the confesses and reaffirms the brother and sister status. Now, that would be accompaniment.

I agree this would be an acceptable case, but I don’t see it as an exception to the current standard. While we don’t have the obligation never to sin we do have the obligation to form the intent not to sin. Intending not to sin and failing can be forgiven. Sinning and intending to sin again cannot.

Ender

 

[Vico]

I agree this would be an acceptable case, but I don’t see it as an exception to the current standard. While we don’t have the obligation never to sin we do have the obligation to form the intent not to sin. Intending not to sin and failing can be forgiven. Sinning and intending to sin again cannot.

Ender

A case that is excluded for Eucharist (but for which reconciliation is not necessary) is when the couple do not actually sin when not living as brother and sister (as described in AL) but are in the objective situation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s an interesting take. That the matter is not doctrinal, but a matter for judgement. I believe the 4 cardinals perceive AL to appear to be at odds with doctrine.

The small point I was making was that both Popes at face value hold irreconcilable positions. Yes there are a number of takes for explaining this - it seems we agree that either way the infallibility angle doesn’t seem to help much…though some contributors here appear to work from that position.

I’ve never thought of either of the positions viz a viz communion as being infallible.

Neither do I, but some contributors here seem to.

 

[commenter]

The small point I was making was that both Popes at face value hold irreconcilable positions. Yes there are a number of takes for explaining this - it seems we agree that either way the infallibility angle doesn’t seem to help much…though some contributors here appear to work from that position.

All of this makes a non-response to the Dubia more troublesome. If some think the points referred to are infallible, and others not, that seems like a loose end needing to be cleaned up. If some dioceses state that AL will guide practice, and others say JP II’s document will, that too needs to be cleaned up in the response.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The contradictions are much deeper than merely “communion practices”. If the expansive interpretation of AL is valid then they differ at a fundamental level. They differ at the level of doctrine.

They may be but I am only microscoping the FI’s exception of JPII’s exception…which involve pastoral practice.

That may also be possible as many Church doctrines (ie teachings) are still works in progress with varying and even contradictory valid views on the finer points.

As we do not yet clearly understand the theology FI uses to actually explain his exception to abstention it seems premature to assert contradictory “doctrines”.

He does normalise standard theological views that many of the older laity (even on CAF) would object to…namely many active irregular couples are likely not without sanctifying grace even though involved in sins of grave matter. I do not think JPII would be opposed to that though he has never come out and actually said this.

You are too quick to dismiss the possibility that one of the positions is correct and the other mistaken.

You misunderstand. As I do not actually know the answer to this problem with certainty the possibility you mention must remain and I dismiss nothing.

You are more the “either or” sort of person in these sort of debates…me I rarely rule out apriori any option/view. I am more a “both and” probabilicist… Its just a matter of prudentially estimating the liklihoods of each view in a range of options…some of which may well be contradictory.

I am simply observing it has little traction even if true because how would we ever know? To think that either FI or an opposing successor might make an Ex Cathedra statement ion this matter is next to unthinkable. What traditionally happens is that the topic gets booted around for a few decades, if not centuries, and then when a normative practice is established the matter gets forgotten whatever way it goes. I am not aware of any hot topic moral issues or practices being decided by EC statements.

If ferocious debate ensues for too long it is more likely a Humanae Vitae type “solution” would be considered. That is, public theological debate was banned and a Magisterial position/practice taken. Whether HV was actually fully doctrinally infallible (as opposed to the assertion of an absolute rule/practice to be respected and accepted) is still debated I believe. It is clear from subsequent Magisterially approved practises that contracepting does have some exceptions despite the alleged intrinsically evil “doctrine”.

Unfortunately I think it is too late for an immediate successor of FI to reverse his new pastoral directive in a HV type ruling. It would be too strong and suggest FI was seriously mistaken. It would more likely be a private reversal of some of the powers FI has given to PPs and then in a few more decades the Accompyment process eventually allowed to fizzle outy due to lack of teeth and become forgotten to human memory. I note this is pretty much what some US Dioceses have done when implimenting Guidelines for Al. They simply reiterate traditional practise, dress it up like its a new initiative paying lip service to AL…and in one short phrase anything further (like options allowed by FI) is to be raised with the Diocesan authority (not the PP)…which of course will be opposed.

Nor is it accurate to suggest that papal statements are either prudential or infallible as the entire content of the Ordinary Magisterium lies between the two.

My small point is that when two Popes at face value say contradictory things then attempting to appeal to the infallibility of either when no Ex Cathedra statement has been made by the former Pope and is unlikely to be made by the current Pope then pretending the position of a past Pope has settled the matter (ie is to be regarded as infallible) goes nowhere.

It is not a question of infallibility but of accuracy. If the two positions differ then at least one of them is wrong.

This is simply the above misguided infallibility, pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps argument, in a more subtle form. As if “accuracy” can be somehow be accessible by some wise and wholly objective person of group bettwe than others. How would we know? We cannot…except possibly if a Pope speaks ExCathedra…and around in circles we go. This argument too just goes nowhere objectively.

JPII’s “personal” view is nothing less than his understanding of Scripture and the totality of church doctrine. If his explanations are merely prudential judgments then it is hard to know what one could consider doctrine.

And this is exsacrly the rub. For too long we have pretended everything was black and white. We even call it “doctrine” which is just a fancy name for more fallible “teachings” we want to believe are fixed and settled. In fact many are not. The Church is a group of people committed to moving forward together in Communion with a duly elected leader with varying degrees of intellectual and emotional assent to a set of teachings. Some are more certain and unquestioned than others. The unity primarily terminates in following Jesus as interpretted by the Pope and those in Communion with him - not in some set of allegedly objective, independent, timeless moral “doctrines” that we uneducated and pastorally inexperienced laity can somehow use to judge our leader on the finer points.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What you are describing strengthens the argument for the infallibility of JP II, not Francis. JP II’s statements have stood for a few decades, and are closely consistent with statements by earlier popes, and consistent with long practice.

Sometimes a statement is issued, intended to be clear. But then it becomes apparent it was not clear, based on (name removed by moderator)ut from theologians, and wildly contradictory responses from dioceses and national hierarchies. Based on this new situation, not foreseen at the time the statement was issued, it is reasonable to ask the papacy for a clarification.

You can disagree if you like, but FI has fairly clearly contradicted some of the practices that JPII held to re admittance to Communion and shows no sign of backing down. Its a fait accomplis surely.

It is understandable that those who thought JPIIs views were infallible cannot accept this and therefore keep asking for “clarification”.
Intellectual denial then anger is the first stage of the grieving process. In time they will either come to accept their understanding of the Church was wrong and so understand…or leave or start a new true Church I suppose.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the answer would be yes to dubia 2 through 5. For 1 there are two questions:

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 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” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29.

Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?

I believe that the answer to 1a would be No.

In AL a teaching that is not new is that “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”.

Now, if the Church will not grant absolution to them even though subjectively not culpable, there only recourse to remain in grace is an act of perfect contrition, but they would not be able to receive the Eucharist.

How to answer 1b though?

What are “the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29.”

1. • Familiaris Consortio was given in 1981 (St. Pope John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation)
   • Reconciliatio et Paenitentia was given in 1984 (St. Pope John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation)
   • Sacramentum Caritatis was given in 2007 (Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Exhortation)
   Sacramentus Caritatis has addressed reception of the Eucharist not the sacrament of reconcilliation, but is does imply it in context:
   
   Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard.
   
   FC 81 covers both reconciliation and communion:
   Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
   
   And also, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia:
   
   For all those who are not at the present moment in the objective conditions required by the sacrament of penance, the church’s manifestations of maternal kindness, the support of acts of piety apart from sacramental ones, a sincere effort to maintain contact with the Lord, attendance at Mass and the frequent repetition of acts of faith, hope, charity and sorrow made as perfectly as possible can prepare the way for full reconciliation at the hour that providence alone knows.

1. 
   I suppose the reason why the Pope and others here see little point in answering such allegedly clarificatory questions is because the questions themselves hold to assumptions and a world-view that is at odds with a true perception of what God sees.
   
   One may as well force the Pope to say whether he has stopped beating up his opponents yet - either way he is damned.
   
   A different way of seeing the issues is perhaps required.
   One such new perception might be to recognise that not all forms of real world adultery are unworthy of Jesus’s gaze and words.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They may be but I am only microscoping the FI’s exception of JPII’s exception…which involve pastoral practice.

That may also be possible as many Church doctrines (ie teachings) are still works in progress with varying and even contradictory valid views on the finer points.

As we do not yet clearly understand the theology FI uses to actually explain his exception to abstention it seems premature to assert contradictory “doctrines”.

He does normalise standard theological views that many of the older laity (even on CAF) would object to…namely many active irregular couples are likely not without sanctifying grace even though involved in sins of grave matter. I do not think JPII would be opposed to that though he has never come out and actually said this.

You misunderstand. As I do not actually know the answer to this problem with certainty the possibility you mention must remain and I dismiss nothing.

You are more the “either or” sort of person in these sort of debates…me I rarely rule out apriori any option/view. I am more a “both and” probabilicist… Its just a matter of prudentially estimating the liklihoods of each view in a range of options…some of which may well be contradictory.

I am simply observing it has little traction even if true because how would we ever know? To think that either FI or an opposing successor might make an Ex Cathedra statement ion this matter is next to unthinkable. What traditionally happens is that the topic gets booted around for a few decades, if not centuries, and then when a normative practice is established the matter gets forgotten whatever way it goes. I am not aware of any hot topic moral issues or practices being decided by EC statements.

If ferocious debate ensues for too long it is more likely a Humanae Vitae type “solution” would be considered. That is, public theological debate was banned and a Magisterial position/practice taken. Whether HV was actually fully doctrinally infallible (as opposed to the assertion of an absolute rule/practice to be respected and accepted) is still debated I believe. It is clear from subsequent Magisterially approved practises that contracepting does have some exceptions despite the alleged intrinsically evil “doctrine”.

Unfortunately I think it is too late for an immediate successor of FI to reverse his new pastoral directive in a HV type ruling. It would be too strong and suggest FI was seriously mistaken. It would more likely be a private reversal of some of the powers FI has given to PPs and then in a few more decades the Accompyment process eventually allowed to fizzle outy due to lack of teeth and become forgotten to human memory. I note this is pretty much what some US Dioceses have done when implimenting Guidelines for Al. They simply reiterate traditional practise, dress it up like its a new initiative paying lip service to AL…and in one short phrase anything further (like options allowed by FI) is to be raised with the Diocesan authority (not the PP)…which of course will be opposed.

My small point is that when two Popes at face value say contradictory things then attempting to appeal to the infallibility of either when no Ex Cathedra statement has been made by the former Pope and is unlikely to be made by the current Pope then pretending the position of a past Pope has settled the matter (ie is to be regarded as infallible) goes nowhere.

This is simply the above misguided infallibility, pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps argument, in a more subtle form. As if “accuracy” can be somehow be accessible by some wise and wholly objective person of group bettwe than others. How would we know? We cannot…except possibly if a Pope speaks ExCathedra…and around in circles we go. This argument too just goes nowhere objectively.

And this is exsacrly the rub. For too long we have pretended everything was black and white. We even call it “doctrine” which is just a fancy name for more fallible “teachings” we want to believe are fixed and settled. In fact many are not. The Church is a group of people committed to moving forward together in Communion with a duly elected leader with varying degrees of intellectual and emotional assent to a set of teachings. Some are more certain and unquestioned than others. The unity primarily terminates in following Jesus as interpretted by the Pope and those in Communion with him - not in some set of allegedly objective, independent, timeless moral “doctrines” that we uneducated and pastorally inexperienced laity can somehow use to judge our leader on the finer points.

“Pretended everything was black and white?” "We’ even 'call it ‘doctrine’, 'fancy name for ‘fallible teachings’. . .

Just wow.

Well you have certainly made your position quite clear.

And here I always thought the Church was a group of people… The Church Militant, those of us on earth; The Church suffering, those in purgatory; and the Church Triumphant, the souls in heaven. . .who followed Jesus Christ, who gave us not ‘fallible teachings’ but Eternal Truths to be proclaimed to all on earth for all time by said Church, protected by the Holy Spirit, and through the Ordinary Magisterium, the Pope and Bishops all together, led by the Pope and, if necessary, the Pope’s ex cathedra exercise of the charism of infallibility, such that in following those teachings we individually did our utmost to know, love, and serve God, with our whole hearts, minds, souls, and strength, in this world and the next.