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

[goout]

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.

This is so unbelievably offensive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Easy Rau, politely but firmly observing continued discussion is not possible and identifying why is not uncharitable, while your uninvited comments and evaluative words (“dismissive”) about things that do not directly involve you could be taken as different.

I could have simply failed to respond, like Pope Francis.
Yet even that will not satisfy those who are determined to have simplistic clarity.
Clearly it’s a lose lose situation if good faith is lacking .

 

[Rau]

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.

I believe the 5th commandment means the same thing now that it did then.

Would you have a difficulty with “Thou shall not murder” being the expression today?

 

[Rau]

Easy Rau, politely but firmly observing continued discussion is not possible and identifying why is not uncharitable…

I could have simply failed to respond, like Pope Francis.

Or you could have:

• addressed yourself to the argument

Such could be fruitful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe the 5th commandment means the same thing now that it did then.

Would you have a difficulty with “Thou shall not murder” being the expression today?

The CCC clearly went to great pains to avoid this once widely accepted translation.
I observe this is because the CCC appears to have at the same time intentionally elucidated a corresponding theology that simultaneously condemns the grave evil of even rightful killings and so goes well beyond the usual force of merely condemning the killing of the innocent (murder).

Now even state killings are on the back foot. In modern times no known legitimate case of state killing is considered possible. Even the theology theoretically justifying state killings is being aligned with that justifying personal killings…ie self defence of the state rather than the divine right of kings.
Nor does it seem that even justified State killings may be directly willed even by the sovereign.
This is very different from ascendant theology in medieval times where the sovereign may directly will the death of a criminal.

So, yes, I believe the Magisterium and the CCC would have some difficulty with going back to the old formulation of “Thou shall not murder” … it is no longer clear or strong enough.

On the other hand, the reverse is likely the case with Pope Francis and the 6th.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Or you could have:

• addressed yourself to the argument

Such could be fruitful.

It is clearly not possible to do that Rau…surely you see Goout is speaking a different language re my points he attempts to engage?

 

[goout]

It is clearly not possible to do that Rau…surely you see Goout is speaking a different language re my points he attempts to engage?

It’s the CCC, which is the sure norm in teaching the faith.
And English is my first and only language
And I have spell check, which I utilize.

Please do not condescend. It makes me want to never come back here.

 

[Thomas_White]

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 .

Well, okay. I’ve just learned that it was said if a person wanted to speculate, they would speculate that “no one here is really qualified or has an opinion of much consequence” anyway. In view of that, I won’t speculate either by speculating that this non-speculating speculation does not advance the discussion of the exception of the exception.

 

[Thomas_White]

Well, okay. I’ve just learned that it was said if a person wanted to speculate (perish the thought), they would speculate that “no one here is really qualified or has an opinion of much consequence” anyway. In view of that, I won’t speculate either by speculating that this non-speculating speculation does not advance the discussion of the exception to the exception.

 

[Thomas_White]

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 .

Sure, Blue. I’ve just heard it was said if a person wanted to speculate, they would speculate that “no one here is really qualified or has an opinion of much consequence” anyway. In view of that, I won’t speculate either by speculating that this is condescending.

 

[Rau]

The CCC clearly went to great pains to avoid this once widely accepted translation.
I observe this is because the CCC appears to have at the same time intentionally elucidated a corresponding theology that simultaneously condemns the grave evil of even rightful killings and so goes well beyond the usual force of merely condemning the killing of the innocent (murder).

That all unnatural human death is regrettable (a physical evil if you will) is a fact. But it is also a fact that not all acts that may or will end human life are proscribed by the 5th.

Now even state killings are on the back foot. In modern times no known legitimate case of state killing is considered possible. Even the theology theoretically justifying state killings is being aligned with that justifying personal killings…ie self defence of the state rather than the divine right of kings.
Nor does it seem that even justified State killings may be directly willed even by the sovereign.
This is very different from ascendant theology in medieval times where the sovereign may directly will the death of a criminal.

Regardless of the framework, legitimate capital punishment is not captured by the 5th, and not intrinsically evil. CP is immoral whenever its use is likely to do more harm than good. How does one weigh the certainty of loss of life (and other harms) against the probability of improved protection of others and dissuasion of other potential wrongdoers? This is a matter of prudential judgement and I find it reasonable that that judgement moves away from CP in light of available options and the balance of consequences considerations. As to your last sentence, the first font must always be good - we (including the Sovereign) may never act out of desire to harm or hurt - the intention must be to serve the good - buy he may choose death as the appropriate means.

So, yes, I believe the Magisterium and the CCC would have some difficulty with going back to the old formulation of “Thou shall not murder” … it is no longer clear or strong enough.

But you’ve made no case (other than noting thePerhaps you can reference something here to provide substance to the claim that the meaning of the 5th is better expressed as kill than murder. Would it change the meaning of the 5th to change the words? Given what we all agree what “Thall shall not kill” does and does not proscribe, how do you understand it to be a stronger proscription than “thou shall not murder”?

 

[Rau]

It is clearly not possible to do that Rau…surely you see Goout is speaking a different language re my points he attempts to engage?

Did goout go off the range in post #331? I had no difficulty following the language or citations he provided.

 

[Thomas_White]

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?"

Adultery is forbidden by God as one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus: 20:14).

“Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell…” --(1035, CCC).

Perhaps this will help illustrate the extreme seriousness of what is under discussion.

 

[Vico]

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.

They also have an obligation to not give scandal so may need to to receive only where they are not known or in secret.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sure, Blue. I’ve just heard it was said if a person wanted to speculate, they would speculate that “no one here is really qualified or has an opinion of much consequence” anyway. In view of that, I won’t speculate either by speculating that this is condescending.

Well I personally wouldn’t agree with that in your case.
Your speculations are worth considering even if I cannot always understand the more koanical.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That all unnatural human death is regrettable (a physical evil if you will) is a fact. But it is also a fact that not all acts that may or will end human life are proscribed by the 5th.
Regardless of the framework, legitimate capital punishment is not captured by the 5th, and not intrinsically evil. CP is immoral whenever its use is likely to do more harm than good. How does one weigh the certainty of loss of life (and other harms) against the probability of improved protection of others and dissuasion of other potential wrongdoers? This is a matter of prudential judgement and I find it reasonable that that judgement moves away from CP in light of available options and the balance of consequences considerations. As to your last sentence, the first font must always be good - we (including the Sovereign) may never act out of desire to harm or hurt - the intention must be to serve the good - buy he may choose death as the appropriate means.

But you’ve made no case (other than noting thePerhaps you can reference something here to provide substance to the claim that the meaning of the 5th is better expressed as kill than murder. Would it change the meaning of the 5th to change the words? Given what we all agree what “Thall shall not kill” does and does not proscribe, how do you understand it to be a stronger proscription than “thou shall not murder”?

All good stuff but I have answered your question and now we are sliding off topic.
Perhaps we can discuss another time whether ascendant medieval theology allowed direct killing when the moral object is CP. I believe the CCC has distanced itself from that position and that it has clarified that ALL direct killings are intrinsically evil. Just as ALL directly intended adultery is also intrinsically evil.
But indirect killings, indirect adultery…that may still be an open matter.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Did goout go off the range in post #331? I had no difficulty following the language or citations he provided.

It is clear to me, if not to your good self. that gout does not have strong grounding in Aquinas’s basic analysis of a moral act (touched on by the three fonts mentioned in the CCC) nor the relationship between these three fonts when comparing directly intended moral objects versus indirectly intended moral objects.
He agues exceptions on the basis of innocence which is fair enough though obviously not what I am on about. Clearly my angle is indirection which he does not seem to grasp.

This is indicated by his "You’ve been confusing the clear intention of the CCC … and misapplying the non-existent moral vagueness to “adultery.”
This is further indicated by his cherry picking of the CCC on its theology of killing, leaving out the more complex ones that go into the principle of double effect and indirect intention.
Finally goout does quote an apposite sentence: “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
“Innocent” is bolded apparently to emphasise that killing the non innocent is not excluded by the 5th. I have no beef with that.
Its just that he has overlooked the 2nd condition in this sentence, “directly”.
Thus we actually have:
“no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

This of course is exactly my point and glossing over same indicates poor grasp of how this connects with the three fonts of a moral act.

Nevermind, I am done litigating this particular discussion that actually was with Ender rather than gout and yourself.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Adultery is forbidden by God as one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus: 20:14).

“Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell…” --(1035, CCC).

Perhaps this will help illustrate the extreme seriousness of what is under discussion.

So you coined the phrase “state of mortal sin by reason of adultery” thinking it represents the valid joining of these two propositions?

Would you agree that “in state of mortal sin” is the same as “being without sanctifying grace”?

 

[Rau]

All good stuff

But indirect killings, indirect adultery…that may still be an open matter.

It’s just that we can’t quite conceive of how one marries “indirectly”. We can imagine a good intention being top of mind in taking that step but that does not assure us of no adultery. Were it not knowingly chosen, it would be an invalid marriage. The conjugal acts that come later admit of a rather more complex array of scenarios I think.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s just that we can’t quite conceive of how one marries “indirectly”.

Mt 5:32 would be Jesus’s suggestion to help you with conceiving…provided you aren’t on the pill re this matter.