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

[goout]

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.

Honestly, no one here is likely qualified to say much of anything, whether it be yea or nay.
We have armies of speculators talking about things with no qualifications whatsoever.

At least, many people are learning some moral theology and other Church teachings by the research of posters and the posting of solid references.
Conclusions and opinions are another thing.

 

[Thomas_White]

Honestly, no one here is likely qualified to say much of anything, whether it be yea or nay.

I cannot agree that “no one here is likely qualified to say much of anything, whether it be yay or nay.” The language of paragraphs 304-306 and note 351 of AL, as well as that of the letter to the Arg. bishops, is in plain and clear language. Consequently, myself and others on the thread no longer find any ambiguity.

The question is thus whether a person in the state of mortal sin, by reason of adultery, ought to be permitted to receive communion. An affirmative answer to the question obviously conflicts with the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church, and that it does requires no high qualifications for an understanding. The question then becomes whether it is possible to reconcile an affirmative answer with Church doctrine. In my humble opinion, this also is not a difficult question for a layman to answer.

 

[goout]

I cannot agree that “no one here is likely qualified to say much of anything, whether it be yay or nay.” The language of paragraphs 304-306 and note 351 of AL, as well as that of the letter to the Arg. bishops, is in plain and clear language. Consequently, myself and others on the thread no longer find any ambiguity.

The question is thus whether a person in the state of mortal sin, by reason of adultery, ought to be permitted to receive communion. An affirmative answer to the question obviously conflicts with the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church, and that it does requires no high qualifications for an understanding. The question then becomes whether it is possible to reconcile an affirmative answer with Church doctrine. In my humble opinion, this also is not a difficult question for a layman to answer.

Makes sense to me.
But, being qualified does not merely mean you have correct information.
It also means you have a sphere of influence and degree of competence with the subject matter, and so the opinion you form is of some consequence.
The cardinals, for instance, have a sphere of influence and degree of competence that is fairly unique. They are doing what they are called to do in their vocation and ministry.

Whether or not you and I agree with various things is really secondary.
The question is, does it really matter what you or I think?
And are we willing to defer to those with competence and authority?

 

[Thomas_White]

Makes sense to me.
But, being qualified does not merely mean you have correct information.
It also means you have a sphere of influence and degree of competence with the subject matter, and so the opinion you form is of some consequence.
The cardinals, for instance, have a sphere of influence and degree of competence that is fairly unique. They are doing what they are called to do in their vocation and ministry.

Whether or not you and I agree with various things is really secondary.
The question is, does it really matter what you or I think?
And are we willing to defer to those with competence and authority?

Of course. But we find ourselves on the CAF forum with the OP seeking an explanation for “an exception to an exception”. He also had made it clear that the thread presumes that the related provisions of AL are without ambiguity.

So, we are discussing this on the thread. Is this not the purpose of CAF? The forum rules provide that we are to assume that we all all equals.

 

[goout]

Of course. But we find ourselves on the CAF forum with the OP seeking an explanation for “an exception to an exception”. He also had made it clear that the thread presumes that the related provisions of AL are without ambiguity.

So, we are discussing this on the thread. Is this not the purpose of CAF? The forum rules provide that we are to assume that we all all equals.

I don’t disagree with what you say.
I am not criticizing you personally ( I don’t know you).
I’m not questioning the purpose of the forum, and I am not questioning the fact that we are all equals.

I was responding to the question of who’s qualified to speak in these areas, which question was raised by another poster. If I were to speculate (tool of the devil !), I would speculate that no one here is really qualified or has an opinion of much consequence. And no, I am not saying you or anyone else (well, almost) is wrong.

Me personally, I admire people who know what the Church teaches, can find it and reference it, and understand it in full context.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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.

That’s a fairly clear exposition though I fear Ender does not agree.
The problem largely is a a varied use of vocab which indicates theological differences…some being closer to the CCC than others.

Wording is important. Sometimes it indicates an obfuscated ethical methodology.
For example is Thou shall not steal an absolute moral ban on “taking the property of another” or “illicitly taking the property of another”?

If it’s the latter we probably didn’t need Moses to tell us that illicitly taking the property of another is always wrong. It is self evident from the words used.

Nor are we aided significantly if the 5th bans us from killing the innocent (murder)…that would self evidently always be wrong by reason of the word innocent.

So what I am observing is that the alleged “intrinsic evil” is often just a word play for some contributors. A mere playing with words that allegedly well symbolise the reality actually under discussion when in fact they do not.

The Commandments are telling something more, something other than that certain visible deeds are tritely always wrong I suggest.

These sorts of word games that say murder is intrinsically evil…do not actually help much in deciding whether an objective physical evil incurred (someone is dead at the hands of another) is a moral evil done.

Such intrinsic evil assertions do not tell us if this taking the property of another is actually stealing, this killing actually murder, this irregular marriage actually the adultery meant in the 6th.

Many contributors here do seem to have the conceptual understanding that two external deeds that physically seem the same may in fact be quite different moral deeds… but other contributors do not.

They see a physically observed “irregular marriage” as perfectly identifiable with “immoral act of adultery” which can therefore never be rightly chosen under any circumstances.

This is clearly inconsistent with the way we judge taking of property which is sometimes not theft, and with killing which is not always murder.

 

[Rau]

…You [Blue Horizon] 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.

He is speculating that the deliberately chosen act is something else [which is good], and the adultery is an unfortunate consequence - a physical rather than moral evil.

Blue has in prior threads mounted an argument that to contracept marital relations to avoid Zika might not be the moral evil of contraception, but the contraception is mere physical side effect. [This arose subsequent to statements about Zika and contraception made by Pope Francis which were interpreted to mean contraception could be ok.]

One needs to judge whether this is valid, or whether in fact one is simply sanctioning evil for a combination of good intentions and perceived good consequences.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

cont…
If your definition fully accorded with the catechism you would have no need to create one; the ones the church provides would suffice.
Ender

Ender I have advised I am not taking this further with you as a car driver manual is not good enough to tinker under the hood I fear.

Re above, you fail to realize that you too yourself “created” your own definition of the 5th Commandment by assuming it means “Thou shall not murder” when the CCC is at pains to translate it as “Though shall not kill.”

Clearly a deeper understanding of the Commandments for the purposes of this discussion means they must be fleshed out further which you yourself have done too. At least mine accords with the CCC .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

OR we must conclude that despite outward appearances the PP has decided the sinning is not as serious or as obstinate as nosy parker fellow parishioners think .

As pnewton quotes Jesus, “what is that to you, thou just follow me”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Thanks for this background. Do not fear, I think I am capable of discerning such concerning bias in the text of interest. I don’t think it is so intrinsically evil I will be contaminated merely by reading it .

 

[Rau]

…5th Commandment by assuming it means “Thou shall not murder” when the CCC is at pains to translate it as “Though shall not kill.”

The commandment was clearer in Hebrew. No 4 word statement in English captures the same scope. Thou shall not murder as the translation would not trouble me either. Would we conclude that that which is proscribed is any different?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is this then not doctrine? (John 8:11)

Please don’t go there Thomas, my head is still ringing from our last fraught “discussion” on the exact implications of this incident, Zen koan .

 

[goout]

Ender I have advised I am not taking this further with you as a car driver manual is not good enough to tinker under the hood I fear.

Re above, you fail to realize that you too yourself “created” your own definition of the 5th Commandment by assuming it means “Thou shall not murder” when the CCC is at pains to translate it as “Though shall not kill.”

Clearly a deeper understanding of the Commandments for the purposes of this discussion means they must be fleshed out further which you yourself have done too. At least mine accords with the CCC .

The CCC gives very clear and unambiguous meaning to
“thou shall not kill”

The heading of this section of the CCC is

“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

This is the good that the prohibition serves…the good of others.
The commandment does not address the death of a person in a minimalist one-size-fits-all way. It takes into account the good of human existence and flourishing as the basis for the teaching on killing.

2258 "**Human life is sacred because **from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

Clearly the good of human existence and flourishing can only be truthful in the context of justice, hence the word “innocence”. This is the clear and constant teaching of the CC.
More clarification of the substance of “kill” here:

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator.

This is by no means encourages a disposition to violence, but it does spell out the clear distinction of innocence.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

Pretty straightforward exposition of “thou shall not kill”.

An attempt to distort the Church’s clear moral meaning of the word “kill” and apply it to moral vagueness in “adultery” is confusion at best.
The dots don’t begin to connect.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I cannot agree that “no one here is likely qualified to say much of anything, whether it be yay or nay.” The language of paragraphs 304-306 and note 351 of AL, as well as that of the letter to the Arg. bishops, is in plain and clear language. Consequently, myself and others on the thread no longer find any ambiguity.

The question is thus whether a person in the state of mortal sin, by reason of adultery, ought to be permitted to receive communion. An affirmative answer to the question obviously conflicts with the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church, and that it does requires no high qualifications for an understanding. The question then becomes whether it is possible to reconcile an affirmative answer with Church doctrine. In my humble opinion, this also is not a difficult question for a layman to answer.

Sorry to again pull you up on your phrase “state of mortal sin by reason of adultery”.
Modern readers will understand this poorly if left unchallenged as it is highly ambiguous…though older readers may understand it correctly.

Where did you actually get this phrase from Thomas?

May I suggest you put it into less evaluative behaviour only type language such as, “Why should someone in an unrecognised 2nd marriage be admitted to Communion.”

Noone can possibly know if such a one possesses sanctifying grace or not (most here agree it is fully Catholic to assume they can be).
Most here agree it is Catholic to say they are nevertheless caught up in grave objective matter whether sexually active or not.
Many would disagree that this objective grave matter is always properly designated “adultery” because some cases are very different as even Jesus observed.

I observe the english language is extremely poverty stricken when it comes to identifying the very different cases that fall under the grabbag word “adultery” … unlike the word “killing”.
This poverty of language perhaps reflects our western religio-secular tradition which has advanced well by means of war and theoretically tight family values. Nevertheless Jesus was not a western European and he may well have seen things differently from what our poverty (or fulness) of words re the Commandments suggest.

Personally I agree with Pope Francis, many Cardinals and even Jesus, that there are clearly some states of life that get thrown under the catchall English word “adultery” that do not fully belong there and likely are not what Jesus or God referred to in the 6th Commandment by the word we men put there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The CCC gives very clear and unambiguous meaning to
“thou shall not kill”
.

I agree.
Though to make the Commandment clear (which it isn’t because “Thou shall kill” is obviously true at the same time too) it distinguishes between direct and indirect moral intention.
This is the CCC’s tip of the iceberg nod to a traditional Catholic Moral Theology analysis 900 years in the making, of which libraries have been written and continue to be written and which scholar priests spend 5 years training in just to become “beginners” in such analysis.

 

[goout]

I agree.

No, I’m sorry you don’t.
You’ve been confusing the clear intention of the CCC in exposing the word “kill” for quite a few pages.
And misapplying the non-existent moral vagueness to “adultery”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, I’m sorry you don’t.
You’ve been confusing the clear intention of the CCC in exposing the word “kill” for quite a few pages.
And misapplying the non-existent moral vagueness to “adultery”.

When you evidence further formal training in the nature of a moral act perhaps further discussion with you on these points may be fruitful.

 

[goout]

When you evidence further formal training in the nature of a moral act perhaps further discussion with you on these points may be fruitful.

Please don’t condescend.

Can you cite references for your opinions or not?
Please show us where the invented moral vagueness around the word “kill” is applicable to “adultery”.
Church sources please.

 

[Rau]

When you evidence further formal training in the nature of a moral act perhaps further discussion with you on these points may be fruitful.

Dismissing another contributor as Insufficiently trained to participate fruitfully? Does that make 3 now?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The commandment was clearer in Hebrew. No 4 word statement in English captures the same scope. Thou shall not murder as the translation would not trouble me either. Would we conclude that that which is proscribed is any different?

I suggest the Commandments ultimately mean what the living Church ultimately decides they mean.

To believe that 5 words written 4000 years ago by a different culture in a different language needs no further ever ongoing elucidation by the legitimate community that descended from the original law giver is of course a nonsense.
The leader of this living community is Pope Francis and if he issues pastoral directives that seem to conflict with those 5 words then I suggest there are plenty of fertile seeds, avenues and exceptions jumping out of the Catholic vege compost patch which could easily take root and put all our minds at rest that the Commandments are not being broken.

The intellectual tools are there, the question is are our hearts there also?

As my sociology lecturer used to say, the technology invented to make the industrial revolution possible, which drove men off the land replacing them with sheep, could have been made 200 years earlier…but lords did not then have the heart to do so.