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

[pnewton]

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.

I cannot at this time work with quotes, byt if your will refer to para graph 300 of Amoris Laetita the Pope explains why canon law will not be used in anyway to address any possible exceptions. Therefore appeal to canon law will not hold any bearing on what the new year will bring as his exhortation is implemented.

 

[Vico]

I cannot at this time work with quotes, byt if your will refer to para graph 300 of Amoris Laetita the Pope explains why canon law will not be used in anyway to address any possible exceptions. Therefore appeal to canon law will not hold any bearing on what the new year will bring as his exhortation is implemented.

Which implies that it is not a matter of those that persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

 

[Rau]

Which implies that it is not a matter of those that persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

Yes, but without explanation.

 

[Rau]

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.

The questions in the dubia, if answered in such a way as to confirm JP II’s teachings, would require an explanation of how/why the proposal in AL “keeps faith” with those teachings; or how the situations AL contemplates do not entail falling foul of those teachings. This is the issue. It has little to do with canon law, and nothing to do with a debate about what may or may not be infallible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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 .

So you couldn’t simply add a word to make ‘opponents of Francis’ ‘direction’ --which is certainly a far different thing from 'opponents of Francis?"

The first refers to being opposed to something a person is doing or saying, and is something that is perfectly permissible --one can be opposed to an idea or action without having any animus against the person holding the idea, or without being in opposition to any other idea or action the person does.

The second is directly against the person himself.

No, your context was not at all clear.

But I’m glad that you have made it so.now See how much easier it is when people actually clarify their unclear statements?

 

[Vico]

The questions in the dubia, if answered in such a way as to confirm JP II’s teachings, would require an explanation of how/why the proposal in AL “keeps faith” with those teachings; or how the situations AL contemplates do not entail falling foul of those teachings. This is the issue. It has little to do with canon law, and nothing to do with a debate about what may or may not be infallible.

Familiaris consortio and Reconciliatio et paenitentia are not in conflict with canon law on not giving scandal through giving of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

[Rau]

Familiaris consortio and Reconciliatio et paenitentia are not in conflict with canon law on not giving scandal through giving of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Of course. The elements of Veritatis Splendor addressed in the dubia are not matters of canon law though.

 

[Vico]

Of course. The elements of Veritatis Splendor addressed in the dubia are not matters of canon law though.

Veritatis Splendor is referenced in dubia 2, 4, 5, however dubia 1 and 3 will relate to the canon law.

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

Unless I am mistaken, the topic of the thread–possible explanations for an exception of the exception–is that in view of AL 305-6 and note 351 specifically, and the letter to the Arg. Bishops, is that those Catholics in an irregular marriage who persist in intimate relations may, in certain circumstances, be permitted to receive communion. A theological explanation as to how this does not contradict the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church is sought. Please correct if this is mistaken.

Of note is perhaps the reception of Humanae Vitae, particularly in the U.S. and Western Europe. There is an ancient teaching of the Church known as the Doctrine of Reception:

arcc-catholic-rights.net/doctrine_of_reception.htm

Perhaps exploring this line of thought would prove helpful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

That would not be a logical extension of what I observed above.

The logical extension is that such doubts are idiosyncratic, the mind’s defence mechanism in face of a relatively clear but emotionally unpalatable pastoral direction by Pope Francis, a first stage in the grief process.

The answer is that older brother types need to have enough faith in the Holy Spirit’s leadership of the Church to work through their feelings of doubt and confusion u til they reach the other side by a process of grief and acceptance.
Faith is always required in the Christian life, constant freedom from subjective confusion and doubt was never promised by Jesus in this life. The Spirit leads us to the truth…that suggests a journey, an end point, not a starting out point to me.
We walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Which implies that it is not a matter of those that persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

That would be a logical conclusion for those cases that are eventually passed by the PP.

Of course it hardly needs to be added that it is as perceived by the PP…only God knows what is objectively the case. Authority can only have degrees of moral certainty…as is the case to an even lesser extent with fellow parishioners.

 

[Ender]

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

Do you not understand what those words mean? Something is intrinsically evil if it has no exceptions; if there are exceptions then the act is not intrinsically evil.* But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. *(JPII)

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.

That isn’t an assumption; it is part of the definition of the term.

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.

No. There are no exceptions. Adultery is intrinsically evil, killing is not. Your comparison fails because the acts are not morally equivalent. If you want a moral equivalent to adultery try murder. Can you conceive of an example where murder is justified?

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

Somehow? This is where we have descended to that “somehow” our acts are justified if only we believe enough?

Clearly killing is evil, clearly adultery is evil.

This is flat wrong. Killing per se is not evil and the church has never taught otherwise.

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.

Adultery is a moral evil. It is intrinsically evil. There are no exceptions. Nor could it possibly be accepted under the principle of double effect since it fails at least the first of the four requirements.- *The action to be performed must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent or neutral. *
Since adultery is always evil this requirement is not met. None of your arguments withstand scrutiny; they are explicitly contradicted by any number of papal documents.
*Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” *(JPII citing Paul VI)

Ender

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That would not be a logical extension of what I observed above.

The logical extension is that such doubts are idiosyncratic, the mind’s defence mechanism in face of a relatively clear but emotionally unpalatable pastoral direction by Pope Francis, a first stage in the grief process.

The answer is that older brother types need to have enough faith in the Holy Spirit’s leadership of the Church to work through their feelings of doubt and confusion u til they reach the other side by a process of grief and acceptance.
Faith is always required in the Christian life, constant freedom from subjective confusion and doubt was never promised by Jesus in this life. The Spirit leads us to the truth…that suggests a journey, an end point, not a starting out point to me.
We walk by faith, not by sight.

And if, as is quite possible, the ‘answer’ comes out supporting the current teaching, and it is found that this ‘unpalatable decision’ is, if not an error, something that actually is not what the Holy Spirit is teaching, that due to a praiseworthy wish for mercy conclusions were proposed which in fact would not actually bring true mercy, and that indeed no change is done to a non ‘gray, fluid, fallible doctrine’. . .

it will not be the ‘older brother’ types who will be dealing with the purported grief stages etc. I do trust that those who are constantly admonishing others to have faith and be obedient will not find that advice ‘unpalatable’ if they are the ones who turn out to need to have faith and obedience to something they will find hard to swallow. . .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Do you not understand what those words mean? Something is intrinsically evil if it has no exceptions; if there are exceptions then the act is not intrinsically evil.* But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception*. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. (JPII)
That isn’t an assumption; it is part of the definition of the term.
No. There are no exceptions. Adultery is intrinsically evil, killing is not. Your comparison fails because the acts are not morally equivalent. If you want a moral equivalent to adultery try murder. Can you conceive of an example where murder is justified?
Somehow? This is where we have descended to that “somehow” our acts are justified if only we believe enough?
This is flat wrong. Killing per se is not evil and the church has never taught otherwise.
Adultery is a moral evil. It is intrinsically evil. There are no exceptions.

Ender your seem to have a difficulty with the intrinsic ambiguity of language whose full meaning often rests on context. You seem to treat language like mathematical symbols and wonder why you see confusion everywhere because people just as intelligent as yourself, and often better educated, see things you fail to see. Saying “do you not understand” does not suggest you are particularly open to the possibility that you may be the one who holds things poorly .

Let’s look at your over simplistic appreciation of “intrinsically evil”.
You are trying to manipulate symbols of reality to force an insight into reality that doesn’t actually seem to hold water.

1. You seem to hold that adultery and personal killings are not analogs because there are exceptions to personal killings but not to adultery.
   Well, I do not know where you got this conclusion from re adultery as this is the very point being investigated.
   But it is quite clear to me that personal “killings” are always morally wrong. The CCC says as much as does “Thou shall not kill”.

Yet we know that some personal “killings” are morally acceptable by reason of TPODE.
So you are confused by this alleged exception.
You conclude there is only one solution to this confusion, ie “killing” is not intrinsically evil.
But then you have a problem with the CCC and the 5th Commandment. You get around this by saying it really means “Thou shall not kill the innocent” (ie murder).
It’s awkward though…because the Magisterium refuses to translate the 5th with murder these days. And your understanding of a “moral act” “moral evil” and “physical evil” is somewhat vague. But you are not professionally trained in these terms…and some used to translate the 5th as “Thou shall not murder” … so you feel justified in glossing over these contradictions in your approach and world view on the matter.

I have taken a more complex approach to these things which I belive better harmonizes with the translation of the Commandments the Magisterium actually uses, and I belive my under-the-hood professional understanding of moral evil and other evils is more precise than your “drivers manual” appreciation of those conceptual realities.

I therefore translate the 5th and 6th Commandment to mean “Thou shall not personally directly kill” and likewise with adultery. This does fully accord with the CCC.

So what this means is that lethal self defence is not in fact an exception to not killing because it is not a direct killing…just as the CCC states. It is an indirect killing.

This changes the character of the moral act of killing. A moral act has three fonts from which we guage it’s sinfulness or not. A licit indirect killing no longer has killing (grave matter) as its object font. The object font is now protecting the wife and kids. The intention font is good (so long as one intends the object font not the consequences font), the circumstances/consequences font involves grave physical evils…but if the goods obtained outweigh these grave evils (the principle of proportionality) then this font becomes good overall. Therefore in licit lethal self defence all fonts are good and so the whole moral act is praiseworthy.

It is still a killing so far as language and indeed physical acts are concerned, but it is not a killing so far as moral acts or the 5th Commandment is concerned. It is not an exception.
Direct killings are still intrinsically evil as you say.

The question is are some physical acts of alleged adultery able to be validly treated in the same way.

Pope Francis has already indicated the reality holds pastorally. If this be true then theology must be able to accommodate his apparent exception to the 6th Commandment.
I do not say my hypothesis must be correct, but it is a valid hypothesis that has never been theologically explored to the best of my knowledge.

And your arguments against it simply don’t hold water yet sorry Ender.
If we understand the Commandments as prohibiting direct personal acts of killings and adultery then arguments of intrinsic evil are irrelevant.

The question simply becomes, how do we know there can never be indirect acts of adultery?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Unless I am mistaken, the topic of the thread–possible explanations for an exception of the exception–is that in view of AL 305-6 and note 351 specifically, and the letter to the Arg. Bishops, is that those Catholics in an irregular marriage who persist in intimate relations may, in certain circumstances, be permitted to receive communion. A theological explanation as to how this does not contradict the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church is sought. Please correct if this is mistaken.

Of note is perhaps the reception of Humanae Vitae, particularly in the U.S. and Western Europe. There is an ancient teaching of the Church known as the Doctrine of Reception:

arcc-catholic-rights.net/doctrine_of_reception.htm

Perhaps exploring this line of thought would prove helpful.

Thomas this is an exceedingly interesting find Thankyou.
I now have my summer reading material.
I have never come across such an insight as this before, let alone a systematic one with a an alleged tradition behind it.

It ties up a lot of loose theological ends I have pondered over the years quite nicely.

My closest personal take has always been along the similar lines of Lex orandi Lex credendi.
In short, the Church theologises after it acts and not the other way around. That is truly how the Holy Spirit acts in leading us to truths both moral and faith wise. It’s an insight better appreciated by the laity of the Eastern Church and Continental western Catholics I feel.

This is why I have no qualms about Pope Francis’s pastoral changes. The majority of the clergy and laity have humbly accepted it…we may not yet have a clear theology to explain the continuity of transition but it is only a matter of time. Our older brother Catholics will get an explanation eventually but it takes time to theologise on these matters. It’s also part of the process of acceptance which cannot be rushed when big changes happen.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And if, as is quite possible, the ‘answer’ comes out supporting the current teaching, and it is found that this ‘unpalatable decision’ is, if not an error, something that actually is not what the Holy Spirit is teaching, that due to a praiseworthy wish for mercy conclusions were proposed which in fact would not actually bring true mercy, and that indeed no change is done to a non ‘gray, fluid, fallible doctrine’. . .

it will not be the ‘older brother’ types who will be dealing with the purported grief stages etc. I do trust that those who are constantly admonishing others to have faith and be obedient will not find that advice ‘unpalatable’ if they are the ones who turn out to need to have faith and obedience to something they will find hard to swallow. . .

TE this is beyond our brief.

The “current teaching” is now what Pope Francis has pastorally directed is possible.
It is not the role of the laity to buck or murmur against legitimate directives and leadership.
That is the role of Cardinals and bishops and professional theologians close to the Pope…and in private I suggest.
We are to follow. There is no sin in you or I not seeking to take advantages of these new concessions should we be opposed in conscience. Neither is there sin in those fellow parishioners who in good conscience seek to take advantage of the changes and one day stand in the Communion line with me. It is none of my business, it is the business of the PP, his bishop and the Pope.
I will follow, I hope you do to until the next Pope reverses things, which I will also follow.

But don’t hold your breath, my experience for what it’s worth, tells me this is a change that is here to stay…just as circumcision for Gentile Christians has never been reintroduced since the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Rau]

…The logical extension is that such doubts are idiosyncratic, the mind’s defence mechanism in face of a relatively clear but emotionally unpalatable pastoral direction by Pope Francis, a first stage in the grief process.

The answer is that older brother types need to have enough faith in the Holy Spirit’s leadership of the Church to work through their feelings of doubt and confusion u til they reach the other side by a process of grief and acceptance.

Was not sure which icon captures the right response :banghead: Or

Francis’s position is not “emotionally unpalatable” (to me anyway). It is just different from that arrived at by a recent Pope (a saint no less), and its expression appears at odds with that Pope’s teaching (and the next one) on the very same point, and possibly with other very long held teachings of the church. It is not about feelings of “doubt and confusion”, but matters of consistency and substance.

Blue, by presenting the position of others as mere personal emotion born of some weakness or incapacity, you are “going the man” rather than the argument. It’s inappropriate.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Was not sure which icon captures the right response :banghead: Or

Francis’s position is not “emotionally unpalatable” (to me anyway). It is just different from that arrived at by a recent Pope (a saint no less), and its expression appears at odds with that Pope’s teaching (and the next one) on the very same point, and possibly with other very long held teachings of the church. It is not about feelings of “doubt and confusion”, but matters of consistency and substance.

Blue, by presenting the position of others as mere personal emotion born of some weakness or incapacity, you are “going the man” rather than the argument. It’s inappropriate.

Rau I am presenting a range of generic possibilities that validly and reasonably can assist people overcome their own brick walls. I have accused no contruibutor here but leave it up to readers in this position to see if the reasonable and explanations I offer is the true source of their unresolvable concerns and so find peace and a way forward. If the cap fits then by all means take it, if it doesn’t then keep searching .

It is a common fact of life, certainly psychiatry, that emotion generating intellectual concerns are often solved at a completely different place.

That people strongly react or take personally even the universalised suggestion of such an obvious thing going on re AL then this likely affirms the likelihood of the observation.
Catholics are especially susceptible to intellectually manifesting completely different difficulties. It is an avenue worth generally observing and individuals so afflicted privately and personally considering as a non intellectual solution to their difficulties with AL.

If you believe I have clearly ad hominem targeted a contributor please quote that back to me.
I have never consciously intended to do so.

 

[goout]

TE this is beyond our brief.

The “current teaching” is now what Pope Francis has pastorally directed is possible.

ewtn.com/holysee/pontiff/categories.asp

It is not the role of the laity to buck or murmur against legitimate directives and leadership.

I always wonder what the point of starting these kinds of discussions is…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

ewtn.com/holysee/pontiff/categories.asp

I always wonder what the point of starting these kinds of discussions is…

Supporting others with their difficulties perhaps.
I find though that most are here to sound off and tell others how it should be than explore a range of possible explanations that might actually vindicate the one we call our Pope .