R
Rau
Guest
Yes, I do know that he also said that, as did Cardinal Schoenborn.
Amoris Laetitia's exception of the exception - possible explanations?
- Status
R
Richca
Guest
I think you may be failing to distinguish Blue Horizon between the positive precepts of the Law and the negative precepts of the Law. And then you are inappropriately trying to apply what pertains to the negative precepts (prohibitory actions) and the principle or principles involved to the positive precepts which inculcate acts of virtue. The following from St Thomas Aquinas may help to clarify regarding his treatment of fraternal correction:
I answer that, Fraternal correction is a matter of precept. We must observe, however, that while the negative precepts of the Law forbid sinful acts, the positive precepts inculcate acts of virtue. Now sinful acts are evil in themselves, and cannot become good, no matter how, or when, or where, they are done, because of their very nature they are connected with an evil end, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6: wherefore negative precepts bind always and for all times. On the other hand, acts of virtue must not be done anyhow, but by observing the due circumstances, which are requisite in order that an act be virtuous; namely, that it be done where, when, and how it ought to be done. And since the disposition of whatever is directed to the end depends on the formal aspect of the end, the chief of these circumstances of a virtuous act is this aspect of the end, which in this case is the good of virtue. If therefore such a circumstance be omitted from a virtuous act, as entirely takes away the good of virtue, such an act is contrary to a precept. If, however, the circumstance omitted from a virtuous act be such as not to destroy the virtue altogether, though it does not perfectly attain the good of virtue, it is not against a precept. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 9) says that if we depart but little from the mean, it is not contrary to the virtue, whereas if we depart much from the mean virtue is destroyed in its act. Now fraternal correction is directed to a brother’s amendment: so that it is a matter of precept, in so far as it is necessary for that end, but not so as we have to correct our erring brother at all places and times. (ST, II-II, Q. 33, art. 2).
The commandment Thou shall not kill forbids murder, suicide, etc., but the corollary of this is that we are commanded to love our neighbor (see the CCC, Catechism of the Council of Trent, teaching of Jesus on this commandment).
Murder is an intrinsically evil act, there are no exceptions. Legitimate self defense is a good act, an act of virtue. As St Thomas says above, “acts of virtue must not be done anyhow, but by observing the due circumstances, which are requisite in order that an act be virtuous; namely, that it be done where, when, and how it ought to be done.” Accordingly, killing an aggressor in self defense is not an exceptionless norm. There are cases where stopping an aggressor may not result in the aggressor’s death and it may even be a sin to use force beyond that which is necessary. But, self defense is a good act; murder is not and neither is adultery. Circumstances or intentions do not make acts that are intrinsically evil or the negative precepts of the law good as St Thomas says “. sinful acts are evil in themselves, and cannot become good, no matter how, or when, or where, they are done…wherefore negative precepts bind always and for all times.” You are trying to justify adultery which is an intrinsically evil act regardless of circumstances and intentions somehow with self defense which is a lawful and good act but which also depends on the right circumstances and the right intention.
R
Richca
Guest
Yes, Jesus also said “Go and sin no more.”I have my Bishop,thank you. And I mean thank you for sharing it really.
And I will keep the peace of mind the Pope has offered and cherish it. I am not worried.
And though I really struggled with Aristotelian-Thomistic, I passed the subjects at the University many years ago,too many… How could I discuss any of it seriously with the Pope no less?.
I am glad Jesus did not allow the woman brought to Him to be stoned. That was the law: Stoning her.And we cannot say Jesus didn t know it. Perhaps one of my favourite passages. I cannot fathom her fear…nor His compassion.
And I cannot help remembering Brother Jay. He used to teach us: because " it is the loving thing to do".
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I am sorry Ender, we do not appear to share a common “under the hood” moral theology vocab necessary to go beyond a summary “driver’s manual” approach to this particular topic.
You simply do not fully understand how the CCC, at the level of non-state killings, interprets the 5th Commandment as being both intrinsically evil and yet allowing of “exceptions” by reason of indirect moral acts.
So we will have to amicably leave it there.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
My response is tailored for Ender thanks. He’s a big boy.
Re above, what else did you think I was doing…arguing a single set position like some of those who seem to get upset by my analyses
.Sure, I don’t have a telephone line to Pope Francis so I do not know how he might theologically justify Communion without abstention.
But I do have a good feel for what theological hypotheses may hold water and are therefore worthy of analysis and discussion.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I would disagree with your use of definitions and their applicability in indirect moral acts here…at least for English speakers.
An indirect moral act involving the evil of adultery is typically still called adultery…just as killing in self defence is still called “killing”. Obviously the complete moral act is neither adultery nor killing…but the outward behaviour still earns those predicates.
However when there is neither direct nor indirect intention then some grave behaviours are no longer so predicated (eg if we inadvertently take medication that contracepts or aborts an unborn child we do not call this aborting or contracepting). Killing is ambiguous in this respect, rape is hardly adultery though some might push that.
Ah, the dreaded nightmare of all authorities, the fear of the thin edge of the moral laxity wedge. I am sorry but I do not prescribe to this sort of politically correct obfuscation of valid moral theology principles simply due to fear of practical abuse by some.
The Church is quite capable of putting arbitrary banns and rules in place when it fears that even well explained exceptions may be used as excuses by the lax masses.
That is likely what has been done re contracepting and indeed Communion for the remarried. The latter liklihood is exactly what Pope Francis appears to have already exposed by his new pastoral direction. The horse has already bolted on that fear methinks so what difference does it make to clarify the theology behind it.
Legitimate lethal self defence, when it gained currency in Church theology didn’t seem to give rise to a plethora of private revenge killings.
P
pnewton
Guest
Not in the least. It is not a syllogism.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
The issue is not Canon 916 (personal requirements for approaching Communion) but Canon 915 (personal requirements for being given Communion).
Canon 916 when speaking of serious sin appears to be distinguishing between self recognised mortal and venial sins.
Canon 915 when speaking of serious sin can only identify objective external criteria. That would imply publicly known “objective grave matter” would be the primary consideration. And even here not all grave matters count, but rather just the customary ones.
That 915 decision therefore appears to be disciplinary as what matters actually count has changed over time, even if remarriage has been a constant until recently.
So to answer your question, it is not the approach to Communion that is a disciplinary matter but more likely the minister’s decision re providing Communion.
P
pnewton
Guest
Again, I hate to speculate too much as I believe all this fuss is premature. However, I can see where one issue might be the knowledge that the first marriage was invalid The other thing that might be considered, remembering that in a population of a billion many different situation will exist, are those who as converts understand and believe, as they were taught that divorce can be granted for infidelity, or that it is a one time sin, or that when Jesus said remarrying is committing adultery, it is a sin that exists in time and not a state of sin. All of these are different teaching in other denominations. It is rare for a convert to fully understand and believe in conscience, or even know all, for years. Usually it is Mary that trips people up, but this too is a puzzler.
So, even if one has come to understand that a current marriage is adultery, but only after converting, I think your first scenario is likely. Having intimate relations is not easy to discontinue and could take years. Then we have to remember the third requirement of mortal sin is free use of the will. So while failings might be common, and objectively mortal, they probably would not constitute a state of mortal sin.
See how complex things can get. That is why pastoral accompaniment is needed.
R
Rau
Guest
Blue - you are playing with words here, and I can’t imagine to what end.
In respect of killing we all have exactly the same understanding of what the commandment forbids (and does not forbid), and we are all capable of accurately categorising acts leading to (causing) a death as either intrinsically evil or not by identifying their moral object.
Of course the 5th commandment is telling us about what is intrinsically evil!. All the negative precepts do that! Acts which directly break (as revealed by the moral object) the negative precepts are by definition all intrinsically evil.
Acts are intrinsically evil when their object contravenes the law. No act with such an object can be good; no such act can be called an exception - for by definition there are none. [The notion of exception only arises when you start with the wrong understanding of what the law proscribes.]
If the killing was “indirect” (perhaps the loss of an unborn foreseen and triggered by some life-saving treatment of the mother) then by definition, that act is not a direct killing, not intrinsically evil, not a breach of the 5th commandment and not an exception to that which the commandment proscribes.
R
Rau
Guest
While the piece of work ought to be judged on its own merit, it may be interesting to examine the website on which it appears. It sets forth a “Charter of Rights” for Catholics that is, here and there, at odds with Catholic teaching. I noted these on a skim reading of said Charter:
No. 28. All married Catholics have the right to determine in conscience the size of their families and the appropriate methods of family planning.
No. 30. All married Catholics have the right to withdraw from a marriage which has irretrievably broken down. All such Catholics retain the radical right to remarry.
No. 31. All Catholics who are divorced and remarried and who are in conscience reconciled to the Church have the right to the same ministries, including all sacraments, as do other Catholics.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I do not see the connection of the above when we are speaking of moral acts that involve the PODE.
You are perhaps unware of the ambiguous meaning of “circumstances” in distinguishing
between direct and indirect moral acts.
There are objective “circumstances” (think “details”) of an alleged external offence that sometimes lead us to re-assess the very object font itself. Thus in a case of licit lethal self defence the object font was not the killing afterall…it was protecting the family.
The killing was present, but only as the 3rd font (consequences/circumstances) and was not truly intended.
Likewise with some irregular marriages. The details may be such that we have to reassess what the object font really is. Perhaps it is not sexual activity afterall but protecting the stability of my marriage. Thus adultery was present, but only as the 3rd font and not truly intended.
Directly intended adultery is intrinsically evil.
That does not necessarily mean adultery is incapable of being indirectly intended in some situations.
Perhaps indirect adultery is also intrinsically evil, but it seems that would have to be argued on some other basis than the simple fact that direct adultery is intrinsically evil.
I cannot think of any clear or solid traditional arguments in this regard yet.
C
commenter
Guest
From Wikipedia:
“In Roman Catholic theology, detraction is the sin of revealing another person’s faults to a third person without a valid reason. This differs from the sin of calumny and the civil wrong of defamation, which generally involve false accusations rather than unflattering truths”.
I would ask you use another term to describe those who find AL problematic.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Is this then not dogma (John 8:11)?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Is this then not doctrine? (John 8:11)
E
Ender
Guest
cont…
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)T
It really isn’t possible to follow an argument that contradicts itself in consecutive paragraphs.
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense… *
2. In a just war…
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
Ender
If your definition fully accorded with the catechism you would have no need to create one; the ones the church provides would suffice. Although, since no one can know what your definition means, it does make it difficult to refute.
If you’re going to introduce your own terms the least you could do is define them. Better yet, just use the ones the church uses.
I’m thinking any explanation that relies on defining killing as not killing is a non-starter. The ban on killing has exceptions:**he same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions… *(Augustine)
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)T
This passage contradicts what you just said above:A licit indirect killing no longer has killing (grave matter) as its object font. The object font is now protecting the wife and kids.
It really isn’t possible to follow an argument that contradicts itself in consecutive paragraphs.
Exceptions exist nonetheless.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense… *
2. In a just war…
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
Since I don’t know what a direct killing is I cannot say anything about it.
If the adultery is alleged but not committed there is no sin. If it is committed it is a sin without exception.
If you believe Francis is teaching that adultery may include acceptable exceptions then you are accusing him of teaching error since that position is repudiated by 2000 years of church doctrine.
Ender
V
Vico
Guest
If canon law will not be used in anyway to address any possible exceptions then it can be concluded that it will not involve the Canon law that exists regarding sacraments for those that persevere in manifest grave sin.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
In this 1994 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it says:
This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for 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’"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
This letter establishes that even when the couple can not separate they still have to remain abstinent and if they remain abstinent, then they can receive Communion.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I used the term in its common usage. I stand by my words. Many of those, as this forum attests, who find AL problematic also find the Holy Father problematic, and do so without any qualification to do so, so the theological sense is not that far off either.
- Status