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

[Thomas_White]

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.

Under the 1917 code of canon law, the number of annulments granted annually in the U.S. was typically less than three hundred. Under the 1983 code of canon law, this number skyrocketed to a peak of around 75,000 annually in the U.S. and remains around 50,000 annually.

 

[commenter]

Under the 1917 code of canon law, the number of annulments granted annually in the U.S. was typically less than three hundred. Under the 1983 code of canon law, this number skyrocketed to a peak of around 75,000 annually in the U.S. and remains around 50,000 annually.

Catholic World Report, 4/28/11:
"…the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, which expanded the grounds of invalid consent: “they are incapable of contracting marriage…who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature” (canon 1095).

Partly for these reasons, the number of annulments granted annually in the United States soared from 338 in 1968, to 28,918 in 1974, to a peak of 63,933 in 1991. By 2004 the number had fallen to 46,330, and it fell even further, to 35,009, in 2007—a remarkable decline of 24 percent in three years."

The 1983 Code of Canon Law neither started nor slowed down the rise in annullments in the USA. The US bishops had received permission from the Vatican in 1970 to loosen the process. I think the reason it skyrocketed around 1970 is mostly related to Catholics being influenced by the secular society. I think the decline in recent years is not due to any stabilization of marriage, but the fact that many Catholics (and non Catholics) are not getting married until much older. Also, many are just “living together” for at least their younger relationships. When those informal breakups happen they usually don’t get counted in annullment figures.

 

[OraLabora]

Under the 1917 code of canon law, the number of annulments granted annually in the U.S. was typically less than three hundred. Under the 1983 code of canon law, this number skyrocketed to a peak of around 75,000 annually in the U.S. and remains around 50,000 annually.

And given that in 2014 there were 154,000 Catholic weddings in the US, that means that the annulment rate is nearly a third of the marriage rate.

If you ask me that is pretty outrageous. There is something wrong with that picture. What is unclear to me is whether it is a deficiency of marriage prep, or the annulment process itself.

 

[Thomas_White]

Catholic World Report, 4/28/11:
"…the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, which expanded the grounds of invalid consent: “they are incapable of contracting marriage…who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature” (canon 1095).

Partly for these reasons, the number of annulments granted annually in the United States soared from 338 in 1968, to 28,918 in 1974, to a peak of 63,933 in 1991. By 2004 the number had fallen to 46,330, and it fell even further, to 35,009, in 2007—a remarkable decline of 24 percent in three years."

The 1983 Code of Canon Law neither started nor slowed down the rise in annullments in the USA. The US bishops had received permission from the Vatican in 1970 to loosen the process. I think the reason it skyrocketed around 1970 is mostly related to Catholics being influenced by the secular society. I think the decline in recent years is not due to any stabilization of marriage, but the fact that many Catholics (and non Catholics) are not getting married until much older. Also, many are just “living together” for at least their younger relationships. When those informal breakups happen they usually don’t get counted in annullment figures.

The 1970 changes in canon law, for the U.S. only, were incorporated into the 1983 code of canon law. Included were the 1970 modifications of what became canon 1673.3 of the 1983 code (if memory serves). This modification favored the petitioner in a significant number of marriage cases when the petitioner lived in a distant diocese, often enough thousands of miles from the respondent’s diocese. I would guess this likely lead to the Tribunal hearing only (or nearly so) what the petitioner had to say in some significant number of cases.

 

[graciew]

And given that in 2014 there were 154,000 Catholic weddings in the US, that means that the annulment rate is nearly a third of the marriage rate.

If you ask me that is pretty outrageous. There is something wrong with that picture. What is unclear to me is whether it is a deficiency of marriage prep, or the annulment process itself.

I have said this before: ,in all my life I know of two annulments and a third one somebody mentioned when I sincerely asked close friends if anybody knew cases of annulments. That was it. Three cases…in my whole life.
So it does really bug me when I hear the mess people here make for accompaniment and discernment and putting our life under the light of the Godspel and examination of conscience ,and all what AL says,as if it were going to Starbucks for us and asking for an “expresso”. It is not. At least not here or in my experience.
I know this is personal,but it bothers me and I prefer to be honest here.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Remember I am addressing those who hold that the 5th Commandment describes an intrinsic evil and is to be translated as “Thou shall not murder” (kill the innocent).
Your audience above would not be in that group from what I can see.

I also hold it describes an intrinsic evil but is more fully understood by translating it “Thou shall not (directly) kill.” Hence indirect killings are not addressed by this Commandment.

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.
Does it help if, like the Commandments, I implicitly mean “directly” violated?
If the commandment was being habitually directly violated (whether venially or mortally) that would be a regular sin of grave matter and right accompaniment discernment could not possibly condone approach to Communion I would think.

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?

…I am not going to relitigate.
Just re-read the 2015 debate here as I suggested above:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=950878&highlight=state+executions&page=2
You yourself were a major contributor afterall .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I think I can offer some clarifications re some of the above contradictions but would like to come back to this after hearing back from TW so as not to confuse the natural progression of that discussion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Under the 1917 code of canon law, the number of annulments granted annually in the U.S. was typically less than three hundred. Under the 1983 code of canon law, this number skyrocketed to a peak of around 75,000 annually in the U.S. and remains around 50,000 annually.

So the past de facto stigmatisation of all irregulars as “aberrant” did not really stem the tide and remarriage has in fact become as common in the Church as in pagan society by and large.

This is perhaps why the practise had to change because the Church’s one size fits all past treatment of irregulars has not worked; the total non-Communion abstaining rules treatment is now becoming more of a scandal to even regular parishioners than the original increasing numbers of “shameless” irregulars showing up in the 1960s.

The Magisterium also seems concerned that increasing numbers of future generations of Catholics are being lost to the Church if otherwise faithful irregulars become disaffected and withdraw themselves and their children from day to day Church life.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Your usage is quite justified. It is nothing short of shocking to see the criticisms that one finds in this forum and made by those very evidently neither theologians nor canonists. When I think back to having met the founder of the forum years ago, it is frankly very disappointing to see.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have said this before: ,in all my life I know of two annulments and a third one somebody mentioned when I sincerely asked close friends if anybody knew cases of annulments. That was it. Three cases…in my whole life.
So it does really bug me when I hear the mess people here make for accompaniment and discernment and putting our life under the light of the Godspel and examination of conscience ,and all what AL says,as if it were going to Starbucks for us and asking for an “expresso”. It is not. At least not here or in my experience.
I know this is personal,but it bothers me and I prefer to be honest here.

I think yours is a voice that needs to be heard.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Your usage is quite justified. It is nothing short of shocking to see the criticisms that one finds in this forum and made by those very evidently neither theologians nor canonists. When I think back to having met the founder of the forum years ago, it is frankly very disappointing to see.

With all due respect, you can’t know for sure that there are not some of those behind these usernames. I haven’t read every comment, but is it really criticism that is being found in abundance or concern and a lack of understanding with aspects of Amoris Latetia? Just because questions or concerns may be coming from laypeople, doesn’t mean their concerns are not valid but it doesn’t mean they are all right or all wrong. But their certainly seems to be a lack of clarity, which I believe is part of the problem here.

In the case of the dubia, that was presented by four Cardinals and theologians have come forward in support of it as have members of the clergy who have expressed support for it.

Wouldn’t the founder of this forum understand that people on here are not going to agree all the time, but supported charitable discussion and debate? Isn’t that what is going on?

 

[billy15]

With all due respect, you can’t know for sure that there are not some of those behind these usernames. I haven’t read every comment, but is it really criticism that is being found in abundance or concern and a lack of understanding with aspects of Amoris Latetia? Just because questions or concerns may be coming from laypeople, doesn’t mean their concerns are not valid but it doesn’t mean they are all right or all wrong. But their certainly seems to be a lack of clarity, which I believe is part of the problem here.

In the case of the dubia, that was presented by four Cardinals and theologians have come forward in support of it as have members of the clergy who have expressed support for it.

Wouldn’t the founder of this forum understand that people on here are not going to agree all the time, but supported charitable discussion and debate? Isn’t that what is going on?

I agree. I’m sure there are some bone-headed comments made by some (I’ve seen them, especially those who unabashedly criticize Pope Francis maliciously), but just because someone isn’t a theologian, this doesn’t mean said person can’t make a valid point or do their own research without a degree. Dave Armstrong is a good example of this. Another would be Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich. She was a twenty-something nun from New Jersey who only had a literature degree from a liberal arts college. I’m always open to learning things and being corrected where I’m wrong, as the two people I mentioned are (and were) as well. These discussions have been most informative, especially with all the links and quotations from other theologians and Church documents as well.

In reading this thread, I think we’ve gotten way off base with trying to define whatever indirect or direct adultery is instead of just defining adultery as… well, adultery. Likewise, we see some trying to pick apart the Church’s teaching on what one can and cannot do in a state of mortal sin by trying to parse words on what it really means to be in a state of mortal sin, in a way that appears to disregard the reality of venial sin. Sin is sin whether it is venial or mortal. I’ve quoted Blessed Miriam before elsewhere, but I’d like to here again for consideration. Even if one’s adultery (or any sin) may not put one in a state of mortal sin due to their culpability, shouldn’t we be encouraging those people towards holiness by exhorting them to reject all sin, even if it be venial? The young Blessed Miriam puts all this discussion in great perspective, IMO:

 

[billy15]

Blessed Miriam, from Greater Perfection:"We all understand very well that the only sins one need confess and must confess are mortal sins: that mortal sin alone constitutes the necessary matter of confession. The Church has clearly defined, however, that it is a good and useful practice, especially for those who aim at conforming themselves more perfectly to the image of the Creator, to the life of Christ, to resort to this sacrament frequently, even though venial sin be the only subject of accusation…

"Here, then, we have the case of a religious [or, person aspiring to be a saint] who has been going to confession week after week, for many years- five, ten, fifteen, twenty, and as many more as necessary. God has held out to him grace upon grace, and yet in His sight, and even in that of thoughtful men, there is no proportionate increase in virtue; in fact, he seems to be and is in a worse state than at the beginning of his religious life. What is the trouble?

"The sacrament is of Divine institution; it is God who forgives, who gives the increase of grace; therefore, the trouble must be, and certainly is, with the soul.** It is just this: he presents himself week after week before Christ, his Judge, with improper dispositions, which, through force of habit, have virtually become no dispositions at all, and hence not only prevent that outpouring of grace with which Christ wills to flood his soul, but in some cases it may even happen that, as a result of continued deliberate indifference, he may be in a certain measure guilty of sacrilege. And the pity of the trouble is- “It’s only a venial sin.” Only a venial sin! Ah, if we looked at the matter from God’s point of view rather than from our own, we should be forced to say in all truth: “It’s all of a venial sin.” We have no idea of the malice of sin**, and therefore we go on our way cheerfully piling up insult after insult to God, and heaping up for ourselves mountains of fuel to be consumed in the weary, slow-burning fire of purgatory. If only we had that clear knowledge of the evil of sin which the saints had…

**"Why are we so indifferent to the great danger and real harm of venial sin? Why? Because as long as we keep out of hell we are satisfied; that is, as long as we know we will not suffer eternally. “It is only a venial sin.” Yes, I am still a friend of God. But just what kind of friend am I? I wonder if it is one He is pleased to acknowledge? Remember his words: “I will not now call you servants… but I have called you friends” (Jn 15: 15). When I deliberately commit a venial sin with the idea, “It’s only a venial sin,” which is the same as saying, “There is no eternal punishment attached,” am I seeking God, or am I seeking myself? Not God, surely. If I were, I would take care not to do anything that would offend Him in the least. **

No, I am seeking myself. I am looking to see just how far I can allow myself forbidden liberties and pleasures, without straining my relations with God to the breaking point, and running the risk of being hurt in punishment for all eternity. I do not like pain. I am afraid of suffering. But just the same, I will indulge myself this once today. I will go just so far in gratifying my eyes, my ears, my tongue, my taste, my mind, my imagination, my temper, but I will go no farther. Just this once today. Tomorrow is the same story. And the day after. only it is more than once, and the number of falls goes on increasing daily. Some day, one of these horses, through our gradually relaxing hold, will break the reins, and rush us madly, much farther than we ever expected or intended to go, down the length of the infernal precipice, to the foul abyss below. And all because “It’s only a venial sin.” Nor is this another exaggeration. History affords us only too many instances. Luther did not become a heretic over night, nor Judas a decide, neither was Peter’s denial the result of momentary weakness. No. All these betrayals had their origin in scarcely perceptible beginnings. And because the shadow of sin was not persistently dispelled, the storm of passion eventually broke in all its fury…

**"And this is why the soul that habitually says, “It’s only a venial sin,” cannot have sincere contrition, because of its affection for the evil. If the will embraces the evil, and it certainly does, because it finds repeated delight in it, it cannot at the same time embrace the opposite good, namely, God. **It may at the moment of confession try to do so in a irresolute, half-hearted manner. And since it is impossible for a soul, while continuing in this state, to elicit an act of perfect contrition, it’s contrition is thus necessarily imperfect.

“…remember, it is impossible for a soul who makes a constant and proper use of the sacrament of Penance not to advance in perfection… again, the whole question of perfection may be resolved thus: To conform myself to the image of my Beloved, Christ Jesus, I need but to will so to do. That will, however, shall not and cannot rely on its own strength; it can effectively act only through the strengthening power of grace, poured in great abundance on those who seek it in this holy sacrament of penance.”

 

[Thomas_White]

So the past de facto stigmatisation of all irregulars as “aberrant” did not really stem the tide and remarriage has in fact become as common in the Church as in pagan society by and large.

This is perhaps why the practise had to change because the Church’s one size fits all past treatment of irregulars has not worked; the total non-Communion abstaining rules treatment is now becoming more of a scandal to even regular parishioners than the original increasing numbers of “shameless” irregulars showing up in the 1960s.

Simply changing the rules will not change behavior.

The Magisterium also seems concerned that increasing numbers of future generations of Catholics are being lost to the Church if otherwise faithful irregulars become disaffected and withdraw themselves and their children from day to day Church life.

Pray tell, what are faithful irregulars? :juggle:

 

[commenter]

So the past de facto stigmatisation of all irregulars as “aberrant” did not really stem the tide and remarriage has in fact become as common in the Church as in pagan society by and large.

The Magisterium also seems concerned that increasing numbers of future generations of Catholics are being lost to the Church if otherwise faithful irregulars become disaffected and withdraw themselves and their children from day to day Church life.

I doubt if anyone leaves the Catholic Faith because of the Church’s restrictions on who can go to Communion. Nobody says “I can no longer believe the Mass has validity if I personally cannot go to Communion; therefore I won’t go to Mass.” Nobody says “if the Church won’t let **me **go to Communion, therefore it is not the Body and Blood of Christ, so I won’t let my children go to Communion. But if the Church lets **me **go to Communion, **only ****then **Transubstantiation is valid, and I **will **bring my children to Communion.”

The problem is not just the casual way Marriage is treated today, but the casual way Communion is regarded. The whole mentality of “the rights” generation is Me, Me, and Me. If there’s Communion (now called communion) offered to anyone else, then I GOT A RIGHT TO IT, TOO. This is the communion (small “c”) generation. If you waive one rule for them, they will ask waiver on other things too. Why should I be bound by that “love thy neighbor” technicality? Aren’t technicalities waivable now?

Consider the person who is not allowed to go to Communion, but is faithful attending Mass and makes a spiritual communion. Is that grace less than the person in the I GOT A RIGHT TO cOMMUNION mindset, if they won’t give me communion I’m outa here babe!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I doubt if anyone leaves the Catholic Faith because of the Church’s restrictions on who can go to Communion. Nobody says “I can no longer believe the Mass has validity if I personally cannot go to Communion; therefore I won’t go to Mass.”

I have met a great many former Catholics over the decades of my priesthood who have done precisely what you say “nobody” says and does. And they were very happy to tell me exactly why.

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
I doubt if anyone leaves the Catholic Faith because of the Church’s restrictions on who can go to Communion. Nobody says “I can no longer believe the Mass has validity if I personally cannot go to Communion; therefore I won’t go to Mass.” (end commenter prior post)

I have met a great many former Catholics over the decades of my priesthood who have done precisely what you say “nobody” says and does. And they were very happy to tell me exactly why.

You will notice in my prior post I specified “leaves the Catholic Faith”, as compared with “leaves the Catholic Church”. Yes, I am sure, many have left the Church. Not sure how many left the Faith, specific to that reason. I know lots of people who are still “in the Church” but reject a whole lot of Catholic belief.

I have known of a few Protestants who converted to the Catholic Faith, and then entered the Catholic Church, because of the Church’s position on Marriage - and their former denomination’s compromises.

In your post, I suspect those who were very **happy **to tell you why, were those who left the Church. If any were those who left the Faith, they likely were tearful.

(Apart from CAF, thank you for your ministry!)

 

[cominghome1966]

I am an adult child of divorce, whose parents divorced when I was quite young, and remarried shortly thereafter.

They were/are not Catholic, but I can imagine the scenario.

Admitting them to communion would not have helped me, and it might have offended me.

As I learned more about the Church’s teachings while converting a few years ago, I deduced that their marriage would have been presumptively valid.

Their remarriages made my childhood chaotic, stressful, and lonely.

That their marriage is/was presumptively valid in the eyes of the Church has brought me comfort. It communicates to me that I am not crazy for wanting my first family back.

That triad matters (my mother/my father/me), if only to me and the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
I doubt if anyone leaves the Catholic Faith because of the Church’s restrictions on who can go to Communion. Nobody says “I can no longer believe the Mass has validity if I personally cannot go to Communion; therefore I won’t go to Mass.” (end commenter prior post)

You will notice in my prior post I specified “leaves the Catholic Faith”, as compared with “leaves the Catholic Church”. Yes, I am sure, many have left the Church. Not sure how many left the Faith, specific to that reason. I know lots of people who are still “in the Church” but reject a whole lot of Catholic belief.

I have known of a few Protestants who converted to the Catholic Faith, and then entered the Catholic Church, because of the Church’s position on Marriage - and their former denomination’s compromises.

In your post, I suspect those who were very **happy **to tell you why, were those who left the Church. If any were those who left the Faith, they likely were tearful.

(Apart from CAF, thank you for your ministry!)

No. They had not simply left the Church…they had rejected fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. They made their choices, and I could recite a litany of them from what I have heard over the years, very often in order to live and raise their families in another Christian confession, in part. But also because of issues concerning family, marriage and marital life as well as over the Eucharist and admission to Communion.

And none were tearful about it.

 

[Rau]

Remember I am addressing those who hold that the 5th Commandment describes an intrinsic evil and is to be translated as “Thou shall not murder” (kill the innocent).
Your audience above would not be in that group from what I can see.

But the commandments are addressed to all.

I also hold it describes an intrinsic evil but is more fully understood by translating it “Thou shall not (directly) kill.” Hence indirect killings are not addressed by this Commandment.

Yes, we (all) know this. All the negative precepts address an intrinsic evil. No licit act may have that evil as its moral object. Far too much is being made of the wording, when in reality we know the meaning of the commandment. Scripture guides us to the meaning:
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.

We also know that it is objectively correct that what the commandment proscribes may never for any intention or circumstance licitly be done. Direct/indirect may be helpful in understanding whether what is done is in fact the thing proscribed or not (eg. whether it is an unintended side-effect). We well understand this notion - it’s application to the 5th is widely familiar I think. It’s application to the 6th has not arisen in any theological circles to my knowledge. If one can conclude the adultery is not a moral object, and that something else good is, then we would be on the way to writing history on this point!

Does it help if, like the Commandments, I implicitly mean “directly” violated?
If the commandment was being habitually directly violated (whether venially or mortally) that would be a regular sin of grave matter and right accompaniment discernment could not possibly condone approach to Communion I would think.

I’m not querying your thoughts here Blue (nor having any difficulty understanding your direction), but rather recalling that you said: “Pope Francis doesn’t see the Commandment (6th) being violated” - I’m asking you to point to where in AL Francis said this, or said something that corresponds to “indirect adultery”.