Breaking: pope declares troubling interpretation of al ‘authentic magisterium’

[anon65111186]

I trust in Christ, that he will not let evil prevail. I believe in his Word when He said:

“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”

The holiness of the Rock does not depend on the Rock’s clarity, holiness, or his own ability. Therefore if he is totally vague, evil and inept, the Church will still prevail.

 

[exnihilo]

But one example of reduced culpability, or maybe not culpability, would be those who believe that marriage is dissoluble at the cause of adultery, and marriage again is not a sin.

The lack of culpability depends on ignorance. The Church should be stamping out ignorance. But frankly ignorance on this matter is hard for me to believe. When I was a Protestant even I knew the Catholic Church didn’t permit remarriages. I knew there were annulments.

God is of course the judge of the individual but I find it hard to fathom how a Catholic could be ignorant of this. However, as soon as a wrote that I thought of the awful lack of catechisis. So maybe it is not as hard to be ignorant of this as I first thought.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

7C is called "deliberate consent in Catholic thought.

The thing is, “deliberate consent” means more than “choosing the sinful act”. They must do so on its own, for its own sake, desiring the sin.

In the case of an irregular marriage, some cannot choose continence (i.e., complete cessation of marital relations). If continence would create a strain on the new (irregular) marriage such that children of that new marriage would suffer (e.g., if the couple should split because of the attempt at continence), then the choice to commit the sin wouldn’t be from “full consent”, but in a spouse’s or spouses’ grave fear for the consequences of not allowing marital relations to continue.

In that case, the pastoral approach might counsel prudence, over time, allowing the couple to come to an understanding of how such a solution would be the best approach for them. Gradually, over time, having been told of the objective sinfulness of their actions, a pastor would hope to bring them to a lived understanding (rather than just an intellectual understanding) of the situation. In such a way, the hope would be to transform them into avoiding that sin.

I believe that you have now described Pope Francis’ position if Pope Francis is not teaching heresy. Pope JPII taught us about “gradualism.” JPII’s message is that gradualism describes the movement towards the law of an individual, but DOES NOT mean that the law is different for individuals at different places. Pope Francis is somewhat ambiguous, but he claims to embrace JPII’s teaching.
It may be possible that Pope Francis rejects “gradualism of the law” instead he recognizes that 7C means that the mortal sin (no gradualism of the law) is just as grave a matter for all involved in it. But for some the “deliberate consent” is so absent it is a venial sin. As they move towards the law (aided by their partaking of the Eucharist) their strength to choose (the possession of “deliberate consent”) can be enhanced.
That being said, I think the practice embraced by many who embrace AL is “gradualism of the law.” This is opposed to JPII’s teaching on the matter and MAY be opposed to Catholic Traditions.
So regardless of the Pope’s position, I think the the pastoral acts associated with AL will regularly be opposed to Catholic Tradition (of course many of the pastors who will do this left behind Catholic Tradition long ago).

Also I think it would be true to say that “deliberate consent” is not only choosing the sin so one can rebel against God. Very few teenagers choose premarital sex for the purpose of flaunting the laws of God. They do it because sex is a powerful lure and the culture tells them to do it (and I fear AL is another step in the cultural slide). Still, the teenager who “fell” must go to confession before partaking of the sacrament. “Deliberate consent” is free choice absent compulsion, not desire to sin for the purpose of flaunting God’s law. All men are capable of making sinless choices, we just do not succeed all the time.

Charity, TOm

.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Just out of curiosity, have you read the Buenos Airos bishops’ guidelines? The document comes across much more measured than you might expect. It’s not just the “OMG! The sky is falling!” that some make it out to be…

I have not. Thanks for the link

 

[whyeyeman]

Breaking: opponents of the Pope continue trying to sow discord among the faithful.

Do you think the Pope is above criticism?

 

[Kei]

1. In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.

I believe this is the controversial part of the Buenos Aires understanding.
But the words
“in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability”
implies that they are not in mortal sin.

 

[Boler]

It’s not right to cherry-pick point 6, as many of you are, and ignore it’s context of 5 and 7:

it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention

However, it is necessary to avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments, or as though any situation might justify it.

Nor is it right to take for granted the complexity of “complex circumstances”.

 

[pnewton]

The lack of culpability depends on ignorance. The Church should be stamping out ignorance. But frankly ignorance on this matter is hard for me to believe. When I was a Protestant even I knew the Catholic Church didn’t permit remarriages.

This works for the Catholic, but knowing what the Catholic Church teaches, when one does not believe the Catholic Church is the teacher, but that one should rely on the Bible alone, often leaves one invincibly ignorant. Just knowing about something is not know it.

 

[pnewton]

TMC:

Breaking: opponents of the Pope continue trying to sow discord among the faithful.

Do you think the Pope is above criticism?

I am unconcerned with criticism. I am more concerned with charity. If we are going to criticize the Pope, or any bishop, it should be done with the same love, deference and humility with which the bishops or priest question each other.

 

[Kei]

I did not mean to cherry pick point 6 but merely highlighted it as a point of contention, as the other points are not controversial so much.

 

[Reuben_J]

I tend to agree that AL is problematic. In my heart I am trying to justify ways of how to support it as it comes from the Pope.

I have been a Catholic all my life and a faithful one too. But the Pope touches on the Communion, a subject that has no imbaguity to us. It is sacred and untouchable. It’s doctrine and discipline are ones that should not be subjected to change at the personal opinion of the clergy, even the Pope.

But now AL comes about that departs from all the old understandings of those who cannot receive Communion, that now they can.

This kind of ruling will make many Catholics uncomfortable. Please do not tell us just to accept it because we too have the right to stand up for our faith.

Having said all that, my present position is to pray for the Pope for right wisdom and to be faithful to the Church that he has so given responsibility with. I pray that the Church would stand by her deposit of faith even against the tide of the world, that she will not roll over and that she continues to be the unmoveable beacon of the light of Christ to the world, at times a sign of contradiction.

 

[LoyalViews]

Our deposit of faith is what it is. Truth unchanging. Our pontiff is to represent that - and to lead us in teaching and doctrine and dogma as the Holy Ghost reveals.

 

[Kei]

The way I view it is that it is mainly saying that after personal discussion with the clergy, if it is found that the couples have reduced culpability/responsibility and are not in mortal sin due to this, then they may receive Communion, which I don’t think is tooooooooooo out there imo.

 

[Boler]

Has anyone directly quoted the document and explained how it contradicts doctrine? No.

 

[Reuben_J]

I understand that which is a no, no, now.

If you are divorced, not annul by the Church, remarried, you can’t receive Communion. It’s that simple, and nooooooo Bishops can say you do. AL says now you can. So it’s quite a leap, one a simple Catholic like me has to graple with. I will tag along but to take a paradigm shift is not soooooo easy as you might think on issue as important and as sacred as the Communion. Unless of course, if you do not care.

 

[pnewton]

If you are divorced, not annul by the Church, remarried, you can’t receive Communion. It’s that simple, and nooooooo Bishops can say you do. AL says now you can. So it’s quite a leap, one a simple Catholic like me has to graple with

First, Amoris does not, and never has, said you can now receive communion. Neither does the declaration from Buenos Aires. That is the hype, not the reality. Second, this type of situation have never been simple.

 

[Kei]

Civilly divorced and remarried
And it doesn’t say that all these divorced and remarried people can receive Communion.
It is very measured and it goes to why such a person couldn’t receive communion, because they are living in mortal sin.
But this is for people who through some way or what have you, are not living in mortal sin.
Please do not insinuate that I do not care about

 

[pnewton]

Anyone read this?

No, but I read a lot of Jack Chick tracts when I was a kid. I don’t think such things are appropriate now that I am Catholic.

 

[steve-b]

pnewton:

But one example of reduced culpability, or maybe not culpability, would be those who believe that marriage is dissoluble at the cause of adultery, and marriage again is not a sin.

The lack of culpability depends on ignorance. The Church should be stamping out ignorance. But frankly ignorance on this matter is hard for me to believe. When I was a Protestant even I knew the Catholic Church didn’t permit remarriages. I knew there were annulments.

True.

exnihilo:

God is of course the judge of the individual but I find it hard to fathom how a Catholic could be ignorant of this. However, as soon as a wrote that I thought of the awful lack of catechisis. So maybe it is not as hard to be ignorant of this as I first thought.

Using the CCC (emphasis mine)
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

That said,

It’s never in history been so easy as it is today, for people to gain information. Just watch how fast a person can get an answer on their phone about a subject they might have never even heard of. It’s been estimated that by 2020, 7 billion smart phones will be in circulation.

 

[pnewton]

That said,

It’s never in history been so easy as it is today, to gain information.

Information does not eliminate ignorance, and ease of information may not increase culpability. Consider the context in which I started, that of a non-Catholic Christian. Such a one would not look into the Catechism for understanding of marriage, but to his pastor, who might very well teach that his first marriage was a legitimate case of divorce and re-marriage is not only allowed, but encouraged.

So in a case like this, the man or woman might still be in a state of grace before God, living in a second marriage.