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

[Ender]

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.

What I cannot understand is how you can assert that an act can be both intrinsically evil and yet contain exceptions when it is the nature of an intrinsic evil that it has no exceptions at all.

Now I know what Alice felt like when talking with Humpty Dumpty. He too believed a word “means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Your position is based on your own definitions which have little in common with the way the church understands things.

Although you have focused solely on self defense, let me point out that “state” killings are still killings and are therefore also exceptions to the prohibition against killing. As I said, inasmuch as there are exceptions, killing is not intrinsically evil (as the church uses the term).

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

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

If a person is in "the state of mortal sin, then it was sin that caused him to be in that state. In this instance, the sin is adultery.

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

Not precisely so. Mortal sin results in the privation of sanctifying grace. There is a cause/effect relationship. In that way, they differ.

“Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom…It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace” (CCC, 1861).

 

[Ender]

it is not the approach to Communion that is a disciplinary matter but more likely the minister’s decision re providing Communion.

Matters of grave sin are hardly matters of mere discipline, and the minister of communion is complicit in sin when he deliberately ignores the requirements of Canon 915.* These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. Chrysostom)
This is way beyond discipline.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.”

I provided the interpretation given by JPII.The commandments, *'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder… *(Veritatis Splendor)
Nor is your opinion about what the catechism states accurate:2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being…
Yet again your assertions are contradicted by the facts. Though you believe otherwise, the catechism does not present the commandment merely as “Thou shall not kill”.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

Don’t let the comments of Blue Horizon affect you. He has taken this attitude with any number of us. All it means is you have presented an argument he is unable to refute - like your comments in post #331. When he gets pushed into a corner he pronounces that it is you who fail to understand, declares himself the winner, picks up his ball, and goes home. Your observations are valid and beneficial. Don’t let yourself be run off.

Ender

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by goout View Post
"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."
end prior post

Don’t let the comments of Blue Horizon affect you. He has taken this attitude with any number of us. All it means is you have presented an argument he is unable to refute - like your comments in post #331. When he gets pushed into a corner he pronounces that it is you who fail to understand, declares himself the winner, picks up his ball, and goes home. Your observations are valid and beneficial. Don’t let yourself be run off.

Ender

Goout, I agree with Ender. You have made sincere contributions here. But if you decide it is time for you to goout, I can understand. I decided to goout, myself.

 

[Bookcat]

Goout, I agree with Ender…But if you decide it is time for you to goout, I can understand. I decided to goout, myself.

so he comments.

Bringing it to an End er not.

 

[Thomas_White]

Originally Posted by goout View Post
"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."
end prior post

Goout, I agree with Ender. You have made sincere contributions here. But if you decide it is time for you to goout, I can understand. I decided to goout, myself.

Nay, I say. I believe what Blue is sincerely tying to do is to find a theological justification for “an exception to the exception”. It is a serious issue and of paramount importance to many. Would it not be better if able and informed commenters–such as Ender, commenter, go out–continued the discussion?

 

[OraLabora]

Nay, I say. I believe what Blue is sincerely tying to do is to find a theological justification for “an exception to the exception”. It is a serious issue and of paramount importance to many. Would it not be better if able and informed commenters–such as Ender, commenter, go out–continued the discussion?

But what will the outcome of all this discussion be? The Holy Father has already “answered” the dubia by not answering. I doubt he reads CAF to inform his conscience there is little chance of these discussions changing his mind. At some point we’re going to have to accept the situation as it is and let it play out at the top levels of the hierarchy.

Personally I have no dog in this hunt. The situations that are causing grief for some do not apply to my life situation. I have empathy though, for those to whom they do apply and I know of too many heartbreaking cases among friends and former colleagues.

That said I have faith that Jesus’s promise to St. Peter about the keys, binding and loosing, and all that are very real and no matter how this shakes out, the Church will survive as Jesus promised it would.

So effectively I’m out as well. As I’ve watched the debate unfold, all I see are the same arguments going around and around again. Might I suggest at this point that prayer would be more effective than continuing discussions that can do little to change the outcome and so far as I can see, have done little to change opinions on the forum?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What I cannot understand is how you can assert that an act can be both intrinsically evil and yet contain exceptions when it is the nature of an intrinsic evil that it has no exceptions at all.

Now I know what Alice felt like when talking with Humpty Dumpty. He too believed a word “means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Your position is based on your own definitions which have little in common with the way the church understands things.

Although you have focused solely on self defense, let me point out that “state” killings are still killings and are therefore also exceptions to the prohibition against killing. As I said, inasmuch as there are exceptions, killing is not intrinsically evil (as the church uses the term).

Ender

Post #324.
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.

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.
In short the words “steal”, “murder” “adultery” all by definition, for some contributors, describe intentionally illicit behaviors. They are by their definition then, always intrinsically evil.

But what if they were better translated using the word kill rather than murder…whence the intrinsic evil? I suggest the intrinsic evil can then be re-found by closely reading the CCC.
We then discover that the CCC appears to assert that all direct killings are immoral…even by the State. Lethal self defence and State killings may validly be viewed as indirect killings and therefore not contradicting the Commandment.

What then for the meaning of “adultery” in the 6th Commandment? Is it always immoral by the very definition of the word itself (like murder)…or is the evil referred to merely physical
(like killing)? I suggest it is to be understood similar to kill rather than to murder.

Whence then the immoral intrinsicality? Well, similarly by directly intending the temporal evils that result from such behaviour. Like killing, can there be indirect adulterers that do not contradict the 6th Commandment?
Well, that is what is under debate. If there can be then the Commandment is not violated, just as marines do not violate the 5th. Pope Francis doesn’t see the Commandment being violated. Nor do I in the sort of cases he and even Jesus suggested.

Ender I am not going to relitigate with you whether State killings can be directly intended or not. That topic was endlessly debated with you by myself and others last year and I have not seen reason to change my negative stance on that since then.

You are free not to agree with my above view but I believe it consistent and acceptably Catholic at the moment…just as contributors are free to believe either way re Mary’s death.
Given that Pope Francis believes some adulterers may receive Communion despite the 6th Commandment…I have a reasonable chance of being on the side of the angels here.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If a person is in "the state of mortal sin, then it was sin that caused him to be in that state.

Yes, “sin” somehow got him into that state.
But must that “sinning” be only by his own personal act or could it be forced upon him by another…just as we were all born into a “state of mortal sin” by Adam’s fault?
Cf Mt 5:32 and the Baltimore Catechism re defining “State of mortal sin.”

Further, if one enters this state thru “adultery” surely we must refer to this as meaning ways other than simply sexual acts. Adultery here must also mean simply the act of entering a 2nd marriage

Not precisely so. Mortal sin results in the privation of sanctifying grace. There is a cause/effect relationship. In that way, they differ.

I think you are mistaken here aren’t you? An ACT of mortal sin would have the cause effect relation you speak of.
But if we speak of the STATE then the state and the privation of grace are one and the same thing. Cf Baltimore.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When Blue gets pushed into a corner he pronounces that it is you who fail to understand, declares himself the winner, picks up his ball, and goes home…

If I ring up Windows10 support with a complex issue and an Indian techno answers who is not well versed in English, let alone my Aussi accent…is it condescending to suggest I be transferred to someone else who may understand the issue better?
And if she wants to know why and I am honest and politely suggest her level of English is not up to the job of efficiently continuing though it may well be with further courses…is that uncharitable?

Or of course I could have just hung up without comment …which is what Pope Francis is accused of uncharitably doing.

Let’s have a bit of good faith in one another’s intentions despite the undeniable communication realities and static caused by disparities of culture, age, understanding, education and experience obviously present here on CAF .

Unlike your own view above Ender I am not here to “win” or insist there can only be one right position. I like to explore with others what may be true and people can have validly opposing views. I would like to have the time to bring the less formally educated up to speed so they could understand the assumed basic moral theology system I am working from and the real discussion could take place … but life is short and this is not always possible sorry.
If contributors cannot accept the reality of life that there are some discussions they do not quite have the “vocab” to fully engage in by reason of less education in that area then there is little I can do to assist should they jump in to contradict my obviously heretical assertions . The less educated wouldn’t do this on a Quantum Physics forum…yet for some reason some Catholics think that baptism and raw intelligence alone somehow gives them an understanding of difficult formal moral theology basics needed in some conversations here. Surely it is not impolite to point out from time to time when misunderstandings are born of such disparities and so decline to discuss further.

There is nothing further to say on this topic Ender if you don’t get it.

 

[Thomas_White]

But what will the outcome of all this discussion be? The Holy Father has already “answered” the dubia by not answering. I doubt he reads CAF to inform his conscience there is little chance of these discussions changing his mind. At some point we’re going to have to accept the situation as it is and let it play out at the top levels of the hierarchy.

Of course, but what is that answer? I am quite sure the OP’s premise is that AL permits at least some Catholics in an irregular marriage who persist in what is commonly understood as adultery to receive communion. As it happens, I agree this is the case and so do many others at all levels of the Church hierarchy. What is more, there are those who agree on either side of the discussion, i.e., there are those who believe this is a good thing and others who view it as a catastrophe. Absent a theological justification, I am of the later group.

Is it the case you also agree? If so, with what? With the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church? Or is it with the controversial provisions of AL and the letter to the Arg. bishops? If it is the latter, what do you think of it?

Personally I have no dog in this hunt. The situations that are causing grief for some do not apply to my life situation. I have empathy though, for those to whom they do apply and I know of too many heartbreaking cases among friends and former colleagues.

I also have no dog in this hunt and empathy for those that do. But I also believe the issue is far from settled. While it can be be ignored, the disagreement and its implications for the Church are very serious. As I understand it, a primary purpose of the forum is for discussion.

 

[OraLabora]

Is it the case you also agree? If so, with what? With the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church? Or is it with the controversial provisions of AL and the letter to the Arg. bishops? If it is the latter, what do you think of it?

What does it matter what I agree or don’t agree with? It won’t change an iota of the outcome. All I will say is that I do not agree that it is a catastrophe, if AL plays out as it is written.

How AL actually does play out, will be the hierarchy that decides. I trust them to shepherd the Church on this, and I trust the Holy Father to lead them.

 

[Thomas_White]

What does it matter what I agree or don’t agree with? It won’t change an iota of the outcome. All I will say is that I do not agree that it is a catastrophe, if AL plays out as it is written/

“We can run, but we can’t hide.”
OraLabora;14373141;:

How AL actually does play out, will be the hierarchy that decides. I trust them to shepherd the Church on this, and I trust the Holy Father to lead them.

At that time, it will matter what we think. I prefer to learn and to sort it out as best I can. It is my belief this is what we are called to do.

 

[Rau]

Post #324.
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.

Really Blue? Have you not debated with those subscribing to consequentialist/proportionalist theories? They counter that failing to take an innocent life, and as a consequence of that act, allowing a greater loss of innocent life is WRONG. So no Blue, it is only “self-evident” when one already holds to the absolute prohibition. Many don’t.

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.

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.

In short the words “steal”, “murder” “adultery” all by definition, for some contributors, describe intentionally illicit behaviors. They are by their definition then, always intrinsically evil.

**That which the precepts proscribe is that which is intrinsically evil. ** The precepts have to be understood. The language used, now in various languages, and in the past in various languages, may vary in nuance - but always what it means needs to be understood. Then the intrinsic evil is exposed. The “direct/indirect” may assist one in this regard.

But what if they were better translated using the word kill rather than murder…whence the intrinsic evil? I suggest the intrinsic evil can then be re-found by closely reading the CCC. We then discover that the CCC appears to assert that all direct killings are immoral…even by the State. Lethal self defence and State killings may validly be viewed as indirect killings and therefore not contradicting the Commandment.

Or we could do what Christians did before there was a CCC - examine Scripture and Tradition. The commandment did not ever proscribe all acts where one causes the death of another.

Can there be indirect adulterers that do not contradict the 6th Commandment?

I’m not aware of such being identified in the last 2000 years, but am interested to hear any ideas or a case study.

just as marines do not violate the 5th.

Because the 5th does not proscribe legimate acts of this kind to which you refer.

Pope Francis doesn’t see the Commandment being violated. Nor do I in the sort of cases he and even Jesus suggested.

Could you expand on this. In respect of the Pope, could you direct me to where he formed that conclusion.

Ender I am not going to relitigate with you whether State killings can be directly intended or not. That topic was endlessly debated with you by myself and others last year and I have not seen reason to change my negative stance on that since then.

Was the “intention” here a reference to the first or 2nd font?

 

[OraLabora]

“We can run, but we can’t hide.”

At that time, it will matter what we think. I prefer to learn and to sort it out as best I can. It is my belief this is what we are called to do.

Honestly, looking at the number of decrees of nullity issued in North America, I would say that the scandal concerning Catholic marital doctrine is elsewhere, and AL is small potatoes in comparison. In the US, 96% of cases that aren’t renounced before a sentence is given, are granted a decree. The US accounts for 60% of the world’s decrees of nullity. Some 30k couples a year are granted annulments.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx

Honestly the Catholic marital horse has been let out of the barn a long time ago. The source of the scandal here is unclear to me but seems to be either a lenient process for annulments, or a totally inadequate process for marriage preparation; i.e. either the Church is letting off people too easily, or is marrying people who shouldn’t be attempting marriage in the first place.

It’s no wonder that some folks cynically call the annulment process “Catholic divorce”. It strikes me as a farce. It is almost an extension of no-fault divorce in the secular world.

Surely this has done at least as much damage to Catholic doctrine on marriage as you imagine AL’s limited possible exception to the D&R receiving communion does.

 

[Brendan]

Honestly, looking at the number of decrees of nullity issued in North America, I would say that the scandal concerning Catholic marital doctrine is elsewhere, and AL is small potatoes in comparison. In the US, 96% of cases that aren’t renounced before a sentence is given, are granted a decree. The US accounts for 60% of the world’s decrees of nullity. Some 30k couples a year are granted annulments…

So what is your issue? *That the pastors of those involved only bring forward cases that have strong merit? That alone would account for the high percentage granted, would it not?

Of that those in the US have a greater access to*Tribunals? That is what Pope Francis is rightly attempting to address.

If a diocese had no tribunals, and thus granted no annulments, does that mean that the diocese is without*what you attribute to be scandal concerning marital doctrine?

I fail to see what your point is*regarding this.

 

[Thomas_White]

Honestly, looking at the number of decrees of nullity issued in North America, I would say that the scandal concerning Catholic marital doctrine is elsewhere, and AL is small potatoes in comparison. In the US, 96% of cases that aren’t renounced before a sentence is given, are granted a decree. The US accounts for 60% of the world’s decrees of nullity. Some 30k couples a year are granted annulments.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx

Honestly the Catholic marital horse has been let out of the barn a long time ago. The source of the scandal here is unclear to me but seems to be either a lenient process for annulments, or a totally inadequate process for marriage preparation; i.e. either the Church is letting off people too easily, or is marrying people who shouldn’t be attempting marriage in the first place.

It’s no wonder that some folks cynically call the annulment process “Catholic divorce”. It strikes me as a farce. It is almost an extension of no-fault divorce in the secular world.

Surely this has done at least as much damage to Catholic doctrine on marriage as you imagine AL’s limited possible exception to the D&R receiving communion does.

I fully agree about the annulment process. Thanks for the reply.

 

[pnewton]

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

I would say that they are not the same, and herein lies part of the answer to the original topic. First, the phrase “state of mortal sin” is problematic The Church often uses modifies like “manifest” though I find that inaccurate, as it seems to just kick the can back one level. On the other hand the Church teaches that the state of the soul is something known to God alone. So, canon law prohibits communion for one that is in what sure looks like a state of mortal sin. Fine. In other areas of sin, one has access to confession. Now, it would seem like the Holy Father wants those in a state of “sure seems like mortal sin” to explore with a parish priest whether on can receive communion. Obviously if it sure seems like mortal sin, many will find that they are in a state of mortal sin. Then, hopefully, a path to reconciliation will follow, even though that will require some major sacrifice.

Being without sanctifying grace means one is destined for Hell without change, and is something known to God alone.