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

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Yet FI can clearly be read as likely saying more than this approach (which is surely already allowed).

Why cannot opponents of Francis accept the more likelyobjective fact that he is allowing an exception to the exception of expected abstinence…and start working from there.

That is the topic of this thread afterall?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Blue: I don’t presume to judge what Pope Francis thinks, but with regard to your perceptions, I see a very distressing Gnosticism in your last couple of posts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Just wow.

Apart from being unable to emotionally accept my observation that many alleged infallible teachings are currently unable to yet be clearly known to be so (like irregulars and Communion) - what counter argument are you actually making to the topic?

I have simply paraphrased Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yet FI can clearly be read as likely saying more than this approach (which is surely already allowed).

Why cannot opponents of Francis accept the more likelyobjective fact that he is allowing an exception to the exception of expected abstinence…and start working from there.

That is the topic of this thread afterall?

Why cannot people who question ambiguous texts be called ‘people who question ambiguous texts’ instead of ‘opponents of Francis’. . .because the first is what they actually are, and the second is a falsehood.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Apart from being unable to emotionally accept my observation that many alleged infallible teachings are currently unable to yet be clearly known to be so (like irregulars and Communion) - what counter argument are you actually making to the topic?

I have simply paraphrased Thomas Aquinas.

What you said regarding the above is not what I was referencing.

How is what I said showing 'inability to emotionally accept your observations blah?"

And since you paraphrased Thomas Aquinas, would you mind terribly showing the actual quotes you paraphrased?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why cannot people who question ambiguous texts be called ‘people who question ambiguous texts’ instead of ‘opponents of Francis’. . .because the first is what they actually are, and the second is a falsehood.

I dispute they are ambiguous given the Argentinian Draft he approved.
Sure you might be right…just as one can still argue mathematically that the sun revolves around the earth if ther equations are made complicated enough.
For myself, life is happier, easier, more harmonious and 99% of the time turns out to be right, when one shaves with Ocham’s razor.

But sure, I suppose its “ambiguous” if one believes a 1% chance of being right is prudent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And since you paraphrased Thomas Aquinas, would you mind terribly showing the actual quotes you paraphrased?

I would if I prudentially judged you had an open attitude on this point.
Unfortunately I have exceeded your emotional credibility here so no amount of support from either Aquinas or CCC will likely ever be enough to convince.

Its a small mirror of the situation between the Cardinal’s Dubia and Pope Francis I suppose.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would if I prudentially judged you had an open attitude on this point.
Unfortunately I have exceeded your emotional credibility here so no amount of support from either Aquinas or CCC will likely ever be enough to convince.

Its a small mirror of the situation between the Cardinal’s Dubia and Pope Francis I suppose.

So you mean that it’s ‘my fault’ that I don’t meet your ‘standards’?

Are you really so afraid?

You aren’t going to show the paraphrases that might help ‘lurkers’ on here even if they can’t get into my heart (and just what does ‘I have exceeded your emotional credibility’ even mean? I think you misspoke on that one).

Saying “I would but you aren’t worthy” doesn’t win you the argument; it could even appear, to some, that you really ‘can’t.’

 

[Vico]

Yet FI can clearly be read as likely saying more than this approach (which is surely already allowed).

Why cannot opponents of Francis accept the more likelyobjective fact that he is allowing an exception to the exception of expected abstinence…and start working from there.

That is the topic of this thread afterall?

I think the reason is is that since it is only likely, it is too much at stake to not get confirmation.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I dispute they are ambiguous given the Argentinian Draft he approved.
Sure you might be right…just as one can still argue mathematically that the sun revolves around the earth if ther equations are made complicated enough.
For myself, life is happier, easier, more harmonious and 99% of the time turns out to be right, when one shaves with Ocham’s razor.

But sure, I suppose its “ambiguous” if one believes a 1% chance of being right is prudent.

You didn’t answer the question, you know.

Why are you calling people 'opponents of Francis?"

Please, can you answer that?

 

[Richca]

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.

Well, in this case is adultery considered a good act? This obviously involves a contradiction. The CCC teaches that adultery (and fornication) is an intrinsically evil act, it can in no way be made good regardless of circumstances or intention. It is a bad human act period and it is against the commandment of God. Unless one is being raped, then freely engaging in extra-marital intercourse is a sin and it involves grave matter.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the reason is is that since it is only likely, it is too much at stake to not get confirmation.

He has done so already when he confirmed the Argentinian Draft interpretation of AL.

A point comes when smart followers realise that perhaps their inability to understand orders is not because of ambiguous leadership but because the bitter command is put politely - and so is confused with lack of clarity by the unwilling.

That becomes painfully obvious when further requests appear to be rudely ignored.
It is in fact a form of firm politeness.

My French immigrant father was like this and I finally understood the firm politeness of the strategy by around the age of 21 or so. Some don’t get it until a later age. I was a bit slow compared to others. Perhaps it is a matter of emotional intelligence and the culture one comes from. Non continentals often don’t get it - but it is surely how the Magisterium customarily operates.

Refusing to respond to Dubia is a standard and acceptable Magisterial practice.
The silence is itself the answer.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, in this case is adultery considered a good act? This obviously involves a contradiction. The CCC teaches that adultery (and fornication) is an intrinsically evil act, it can in no way be made good regardless of circumstances or intention. It is a bad human act period and it is against the commandment of God. Unless one is being raped, then freely engaging in extra-marital intercourse is a sin and it involves grave matter.

To personally kill another is also intrinsically evil and never allowed.
Yet there are exceptions.

Therefore it appears an assumption to assume “intrinsically evil” grave matters are by that definition alone incapable of being essential consequences of a good moral act.

And therein lies a possible answer.

That is, when we kill in self defence the killing itself is not actually the “matter” (the 1st font) of the moral act. It is actually the 2nd font of the act (the unavoidable “circumstances/consequences”).

So the question then becomes can some cases of “adultery” also be such that the sexual activity is a foreseen and unavoidable consequence/circumstance of a different object matter - as is the case with lethal defence of one’s family.

Thus the sexual activity would somehow be an unavoidable consequence of actually intending something completely different?

For example, keeping a 2nd marriage together with a non Catholic husband who finds abstinence a completely foreign concept…and all the other requirements mentioned by AL are also in place. Does the wife truly and directly intend adulterous sexual activity when she pays her husband the marital debt which he sincerely regards as an intrinsic part of their marriage for the sake of the children and the stability of the marriage?

Does a man defending his family from an intruder directly intend the death of his attacker even when he knows his defence must be lethal?

Clearly killing is evil, clearly adultery is evil.
But if the intention is indirect and the evil is truly no longer the object matter of the moral act but only its circumstances/consequences…then the act is not a moral evil.

It still involves serious physical evils (killing, sexual activity allegedly with one other than one’s husband)…but not moral evils…so long as the usual conditions hold when calling upon the principle of double effect.

As far as I know noone has ever raised the question whether some rarer forms of “adultery” can qualify under the PODE

The question of admittance to Communion then becomes a matter of potential scandal (ie the maturity of the local community re this exception) and the “disposition” of the person (as per AL, not flaunting the situation, having discharged all other moral responsibilities re the first marriage, irretrievable first marriage, a technical failure by the Tribunal, good conscience belief the first marriage was not valid, otherwise a model parishioner etc).

 

[pnewton]

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

I am guession this did not go as planned, at least after a while. I have bee holding off here because this thread has become clone of other discussions, the very thing the original poster did not want

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You didn’t answer the question, you know.

Why are you calling people 'opponents of Francis?"

Please, can you answer that?

From the context I clearly mean that those who are most “confused” strangely are those most opposed to the new pastoral direction Pope Francis has issued and who say if it is what it looks like at face value it contradicts tradition.

Like Pope Francis I thought the context was clear enough .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am guessing this did not go as planned, at least after a while.

Well, from previous experience I knew it would likely go that way eventually .

I am hoping contributors might be polite enough to keep to the terms if I politely remind them of the topic now and again - but I don’t really want to get too controlling on this as that doesn’t work either.

I would appreciate if those who cannot accept the topic assumption start up a new thread if they really want to go that way and I will happily join in there if wanted .

I have bee holding off here because this thread has become clone of other discussions, the very thing the original poster did not want

Thankyou for that, we may have to go with the flo .

 

[Vico]

Well, in this case is adultery considered a good act? This obviously involves a contradiction. The CCC teaches that adultery (and fornication) is an intrinsically evil act, it can in no way be made good regardless of circumstances or intention. It is a bad human act period and it is against the commandment of God. Unless one is being raped, then freely engaging in extra-marital intercourse is a sin and it involves grave matter.

Rape could be a case, but certainly unwilling intercourse; where there are two involved so the sin for one may not be a sin for the other. Anything that would reduce culpability which would be a lack of willfulness or knowledge.

 

[Vico]

He has done so already when he confirmed the Argentinian Draft interpretation of AL.

A point comes when smart followers realise that perhaps their inability to understand orders is not because of ambiguous leadership but because the bitter command is put politely - and so is confused with lack of clarity by the unwilling.

That becomes painfully obvious when further requests appear to be rudely ignored.
It is in fact a form of firm politeness.

My French immigrant father was like this and I finally understood the firm politeness of the strategy by around the age of 21 or so. Some don’t get it until a later age. I was a bit slow compared to others. Perhaps it is a matter of emotional intelligence and the culture one comes from. Non continentals often don’t get it - but it is surely how the Magisterium customarily operates.

Refusing to respond to Dubia is a standard and acceptable Magisterial practice.
The silence is itself the answer.

So the answer is to leave doubts? Nobody is held to what is not clear.

 

[Rau]

So the answer is to leave doubts? Nobody is held to what is not clear.

Post #203 explains why answering the dubia is challenging.

 

[Vico]

Post #203 explains why answering the dubia is challenging.

Yes, I read that. It is challenging.

CIC

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 1007 The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.