Canadian bishops: no change in policy on Communion for divorced/remarried

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s a civil marriage, thus the Catholic did not remarry in the Church. Therefore the remarriage is not “valid”. Does this not have the Catholic engage in grave matter (sex outside marriage)?

Don’t know what “objective disposition” means…

Can. 915 Those who … and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

OK, but how does that support a view that the PP, during accompaniment, could form a view about responsibility and culpability? You seem to have made Ginny’s case by lowering the hurdle to be denied communion to the objective grave sin, rather than the subjective (mortal sin committed)! This seems to be the opposite of your prior position.

You will have to quote me my prior position so I can see what the contradiction is.

To be honest I was relying on my memory and thought the word disposition was in Canon 915. I’ll have to check where the disposition judgement is important!.

Though a judgement as to “obstinancy” is of course dispositive and can be objectively judged by the Communicants repeated actions and their degree of publicity.
But basically I think its fairly clear that 915 is a judgement re degree of public, 0bjective grave matter. Grave matter of itself does not bann. Its a complex judgement based on degree of obstinacy (personal disposition), manifestness (brazenness/scandal which is also partly dispositive) and the degree of grave matter. I think AL makes it clear there are different types of adultery of differing gravity.

So in my mind its still not about judging culpability re the grave matter itself … but more about judging the degree of objective grave matter being done, the likely degree of objective scandal involved and also the general disposition of the would be communicant re the whole situation and indeed the Church. Admittedly the latter derives not so much from Canon 915 but from comments Pope Francis makes in AL re the discernment process. They are not unrelated however.

In some ways I am beginning to think AL is an expanded commentary on the principles behind the succinct Canon 915.

 

[Rau]

You will have to quote me my prior position so I can see what the contradiction is.

To be honest I was relying on my memory and thought the word disposition was in Canon 915. I’ll have to check where the disposition judgement is important!.

Though a judgement as to “obstinancy” is of course dispositive and can be objectively judged by the Communicants repeated actions and their degree of publicity.
But basically I think its fairly clear that 915 is a judgement re degree of public, 0bjective grave matter. Grave matter of itself does not bann. Its a complex judgement based on degree of obstinacy (personal disposition), manifestness (brazenness/scandal which is also partly dispositive) and the degree of grave matter. I think AL makes it clear there are different types of adultery of differing gravity.

So in my mind its still not about judging culpability re the grave matter itself … but more about judging the degree of objective grave matter being done, the likely degree of objective scandal involved and also the general disposition of the would be communicant re the whole situation and indeed the Church. Admittedly the latter derives not so much from Canon 915 but from comments Pope Francis makes in AL re the discernment process. They are not unrelated however.

In some ways I am beginning to think AL is an expanded commentary on the principles behind the succinct Canon 915.

You appear to be retracting what you wrote in post #107 and to be replacing it with something else, rather harder to grasp. I don’t envy priests charged with managing this process and I’d suggest the guidelines of the Argentine bishops offer their priests no insights at all into the matters you propose as relevant!

We are talking about a civilly married couple. I really don’t know what you mean by “repeated actions and degree of publicity”; what is “public objective grave matter” for a civilly married couple? What is “degree of grave matter” and the various other expressions you use in that paragraph. One could almost think you are saying that so long as they appear outwardly to be living in continence they may receive communion!l. Which begs the question - what enables reception of communion in private?

If genuinely trying to live in continence remains the hurdle for receipt of the sacraments, then that is the same as prior practice. The Argentine bishops did not read it that way.

 

[Ginny89]

“You people” . Heaven knows what category you’ve assigned me to Ginny… Anyway, the Pope listed several in AL Ginny as factors which can diminish the free choice necessary for serious sin. **
I apologize if I misunderstood your position. Do you mind summarizing it for me? Do you think it permissible for a couple in a marriage found not to be proper (there is an unanulled prior marriage) to approach communion and confession without being asked to set aside the illicit sexual relationship? My position is that pope JPII’s teaching that such is impossible stands as AL has not set it aside, not could the pope set it aside. I was under the impression you think such is permissible because saying no to sex with the illegimitate spouse is a hard thing to do. If I was wrong I withdraw my comments suggesting the same.

 

[Ginny89]

OK. In that case, not much to discuss! But if one understands AL in that way, then how does one make sense of this sequence of events:

• Pope produces AL;
• There is a significant level of consternation among both lay and clergy concerning the matter of sacraments for the divorced and remarried, including 4 Cardinals moved to seek clarification of elements thought to diverge from prior teaching and practice, by way of a dubium. Pope declines to answer the dubia.
• Argentinian Bishops produce an outline of how to implement the section in AL dealing with accompaniment of re-married persons and are quite explicit about the existence of sencarios leading to reception of the sacraments, despite continence not being adopted;
• Pope responds to those Bishops confirming they have perfectly understood AL and that there is no other interpretation.

The view that AL changes nothing about reception of the sacraments for the remarried, and the implementation practice outlined by the Argentinian Bishops, are obviously not compatible. Yet the Pope is telling the Argentinian Bishops that they have got it exactly right. I believe the Pope speaks with sincerity whenever he speaks - be it to the whole world, or to one set of Bishops. So what can be concluded?

I think it is clear what Pope Francis’ personal position is. I am not arguing that. I am simply denying that he has put this “position” explicitly in AL. Instead he used very vague language that can be read perfectly in keeping with the past teaching and practice. It can also be read in a heterodox manner. It is this possibility, proved by bishops in Germany, Canada, Malta and Argentina that had the cardinals put forth the dubia. Because AL is vague and open to abuse. I am not denying that it was made vague quite delibetately by the pope to allow the Argentiniam position without having to explicitly say it to the church himself.

Cardinal Muller said that if Pope Francis wanted to change doctrine or practice he would have done so in a clear manner. Seeing as he did not, the responsible catholic thing to do is not to set aside teachings and laws that have not been set aside by any authority yet. This means it is those who insist that AL changes doctrine or practice who carry the burden of showing where it does so precisely.

I believe Pope Francis is wrong in the direction he has taken but I also believe he has not taught this direction to the church as catholic teaching. Some believe it is because the Holy Spirit has prevented him from doing so. Me? I am still waiting. What I do know, there is not one passage in AL that says that continence and repentance are no longer necessary to approach communion for those in this situation.

 

[Thomas_White]

The view that AL changes nothing about reception of the sacraments for the remarried, and the implementation practice outlined by the Argentinian Bishops, are obviously not compatible. Yet the Pope is telling the Argentinian Bishops that they have got it exactly right. I believe the Pope speaks with sincerity whenever he speaks - be it to the whole world, or to one set of Bishops. So what can be concluded?

Conclusion: That further argument about these facts is a waste of time. :takeoff:

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You appear to be retracting what you wrote in post #107 and to be replacing it with something else, rather harder to grasp. I don’t envy priests charged with managing this process and I’d suggest the guidelines of the Argentine bishops offer their priests no insights at all into the matters you propose as relevant!

Can you be more specific?

We are talking about a civilly married couple. I really don’t know what you mean by “repeated actions and degree of publicity”;

Manifest obstinacy.

what is “public objective grave matter” for a civilly married couple?

Their objective state and condition…the cohabitation and civil remarriage itself.

What is “degree of grave matter” and the various other expressions you use in that paragraph.

A continent remarried couple are clearly involved in less grave matter than the active. The gravity is attenuated to the extent that Communion is possible under some circumstances.

One could almost think you are saying that so long as they appear outwardly to be living in continence they may receive communion!l. Which begs the question - what enables reception of communion in private?

If genuinely trying to live in continence remains the hurdle for receipt of the sacraments, then that is the same as prior practice. The Argentine bishops did not read it that way.

Nevermind, if the green here is so fraught re understanding what then the dry .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think it is clear what Pope Francis’ personal position is. I am not arguing that. I am simply denying that he has put this “position” explicitly in AL. Instead he used very vague language that can be read perfectly in keeping with the past teaching and practice. It can also be read in a heterodox manner. It is this possibility, proved by bishops in Germany, Canada, Malta and Argentina that had the cardinals put forth the dubia. Because AL is vague and open to abuse. I am not denying that it was made vague quite delibetately by the pope to allow the Argentiniam position without having to explicitly say it to the church himself.

Cardinal Muller said that if Pope Francis wanted to change doctrine or practice he would have done so in a clear manner. Seeing as he did not, the responsible catholic thing to do is not to set aside teachings and laws that have not been set aside by any authority yet. This means it is those who insist that AL changes doctrine or practice who carry the burden of showing where it does so precisely.

I believe Pope Francis is wrong in the direction he has taken but I also believe he has not taught this direction to the church as catholic teaching. Some believe it is because the Holy Spirit has prevented him from doing so. Me? I am still waiting. What I do know, there is not one passage in AuL that says that continence and repentance are no longer necessary to approach communion for those in this situation.

I think it is growing clear by the day that Card Muller has no understanding of where Pope Francis is coming from at all. Though he is trying hard.
I cannot see him getting a renewal of term.

 

[Rau]

I think it is growing clear by the day that Card Muller has no understanding of where Pope Francis is coming from at all. Though he is trying hard. I cannot see him getting a renewal of term.

I think the greater desire would be to understand where he is going.

 

[Rau]

I think it is clear what Pope Francis’ personal position is. I am not arguing that. I am simply denying that he has put this “position” explicitly in AL.

Certainly the relevant portion of AL is not brought to a head in clear and emphatic language. There is not statement denying some aspect of the prior position. But there are statements that simply did not arise in the prior position.

Instead he used very vague language that can be read perfectly in keeping with the past teaching and practice. It can also be read in a heterodox manner. It is this possibility, proved by bishops in Germany, Canada, Malta and Argentina that had the cardinals put forth the dubia. Because AL is vague and open to abuse. I am not denying that it was made vague quite deliberately by the pope to allow the Argentinian position without having to explicitly say it to the church himself.

Ginny - if he says something about the meaning of AL to the Church of Argentina, then he says it to the whole Church.

I believe Pope Francis is wrong in the direction he has taken but I also believe he has not taught this direction to the church as catholic teaching.

Cardinal Burke speculates that some parts of AL ought be viewed as “reflection of the Holy Father, but not magisterium”. Even if that is so, it remains that AL itself, the Argentinian guidelines, and the emphatic endorsement of those guidelines by the Pope sets a direction, and one that is communicated to the whole Church.

A few quotes from AL (from Chapter 8) to address some earlier questions:

From 301:
The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult:

From 302:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circum-stances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases.

From 305
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [351: In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.]

I don’t think this section of AL is intending to do no more than “restate” the prior position. There would be absolutely no reason to retrace that ground unless setting out to “shore up” that prior position - and I believe there is unanimous agreement that AL is not seeking to do that.

 

[Thomas_White]

From 305
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [351: In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.]

The above, from AL, is plain and clear. Of course it provides that in certain cases a person in an irregular marriage (as “marriage” is commonly understood) can be permitted to receive communion. Whether we are in agreement or otherwise, it says what it says. It is a curious thing that what is so obvious, or ought to be, is so vigorously denied by some.

 

[Rau]

The above, from AL, is plain and clear. Of course it provides that in certain cases a person in an irregular marriage (as “marriage” is commonly understood) can be permitted to receive communion. Whether we are in agreement or otherwise, it says what it says. It is a curious thing that what is so obvious, or ought to be, is so vigorously denied by some.

And I’d add the following for clarification:

The section of AL you quoted would have been completely in order had it appeared in Famiaris Consortio. The “objective sin” could have been the cohabitation and representation of each other as husband and wife.

But it is clear that is not the context implied in the text of AL for the latter seeks to expand on what went before, not simply restate it or justify it. If there was any doubt as to the meaning, the interaction with the Argentinian Bishops removed it.

 

[Ginny89]

The above, from AL, is plain and clear. Of course it provides that in certain cases a person in an irregular marriage (as “marriage” is commonly understood) can be permitted to receive communion. Whether we are in agreement or otherwise, it says what it says. It is a curious thing that what is so obvious, or ought to be, is so vigorously denied by some.

More from the “why are you all too stupid to agree with my erudite self” crowd, I see.

 

[Ginny89]

Certainly the relevant portion of AL is not brought to a head in clear and emphatic language. There is not statement denying some aspect of the prior position. But there are statements that simply did not arise in the prior position.

Ginny - if he says something about the meaning of AL to the Church of Argentina, then he says it to the whole Church.

He also said he doesn’t remember the footnote that was all the rage.

This is your interpretation of a document that you agree is vague and imprecise. Pope Francis wrote a private letter to the Argentinians no different than the letters Pope Honorius wrote to heretical bishops in the early century encouraging them in their heretical positions. Why is this letter any more a teaching to the whole church than Pope Honorius’ letters?

Cardinal Burke speculates that some parts of AL ought be viewed as “reflection of the Holy Father, but not magisterium”. Even if that is so, it remains that AL itself, the Argentinian guidelines, and the emphatic endorsement of those guidelines by the Pope sets a direction, and one that is communicated to the whole Church.

Again, your interpretation. The pope has been asked more direct questions that would remove all ambiguity and has refused to do answer them. Mind explaining that if the pope has been as clear as you purport he has? What is the difficulty in yes and no regarding things he has already, according to you, set a clear direction on in explicit teachings given to the church as such? Has the pope corrected all the bishops including the chief of the CDF who speaks for him on such matters who have insisted that any guidelines like these are illegitimate? You are forcing a clarity that is not there and IT IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE POPE DOES NOT WANT TO PROVIDE IT.

A few quotes from AL (from Chapter 8) to address some earlier questions:

From 301:
The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

Correct. Nothing to see here as far as traditional teaching goes.

Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult:

Ah-huh.

From 302:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circum-stances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases.

And for these reasons, we are asked not to judge anyone’s soul. I also notice they have nothing to do with any particular sin, such as a sin of remarriage and continued sexual sins. Just an acknowledgement that we cannot know the full subjective situation of a person who is committing grave sin. Again, nothing to see here.

 

[Ginny89]

From 305
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [351: In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.]

The infamous footnote!

These “certain cases”: Can you say definitively that this passage CANNOT mean cases where the persons make a firm committment to cease sexual relations even though they fall from time to time? If you cannot exclude this interpretation, your insistence on clarity as to the meaning of this document fails.

Indeed, reading this in keeping with the magisterium would provide that interpretation. Otherwise, why only “certain cases” among those where, according to the passage you have provided, there is diminished culpubility? After all, why cant all who have “diminished culpability” be helped by the sacraments? I

I would say it is because short of a miracle, this is not something easy for anyone to tell without objective standars like a committment from the person to do their best to cease sexual relations.

And in what way does this differ from any other sin?

I don’t think this section of AL is intending to do no more than “restate” the prior position. There would be absolutely no reason to retrace that ground unless setting out to “shore up” that prior position - and I believe there is unanimous agreement that AL is not seeking to do that.

Regardless of the pope’s personal intentions, what matters is what he ACTUALLY ends up teaching the church. Jesus does not promise that no pope will intend to teach the church something erroneous. Only that they will not teach the church something erroneous. Even in definitive infallible declarations (which AL is not) the church’s theology is clear that only the actual formulation matters, not even the arguments put up to explain and support it by the pope, do.

So I will repeat what I said earlier: no one is confused about the desires of pope Francis. He has however NOT put this in any explicit teaching given to the church as such. In fact, he has blatantly REFUSED to do so.

The claim about a unanimous agreement as to the interpretation of AL visavis this issue is manifestly false. Do you want proof of bishops who insist it changes nothing, including Cardinal Muller?

And popes reiterate church teaching all the time. The idea that the only reason to preach to and teach the church is to keep adding stuff is bizzarre.

 

[Ginny89]

And I’d add the following for clarification:

The section of AL you quoted would have been completely in order had it appeared in Famiaris Consortio. The “objective sin” could have been the cohabitation and representation of each other as husband and wife.

But it is clear that is not the context implied in the text of AL for the latter seeks to expand on what went before, not simply restate it or justify it. If there was any doubt as to the meaning, the interaction with the Argentinian Bishops removed it.

Which is why I said before, this reading is derived from sources extraneous to AL, not AL. We are saying we know this is what the pope wants. But our faith does not bind us to what the pope WANTS, INTENDS, DESIRES. It binds us to what the pope TEACHES and what JESUS WANTS, INTENDS, DESIRES. Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentians was a leaked private letter, in the middle of a controversy, no different from the letters of Pope Honorius to Patriarchs in the East.

 

[Rau]

Which is why I said before, this reading is derived from sources extraneous to AL, not AL.

For me, this reading is what one concludes reading AL in context, not as isolated paragraphs. The Argentinian exchange buttresses that reading.

The Argentinians asked (I paraphrase): “Please confirm we have the correct understanding of this section of AL Holy Father”. Pope answers: "You have exactly the correct understanding of Chapter 8 of AL. There is no other interpretation. Full stop.

The Vatican confirmed the Pope’s letter was authentic. I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude that the Pope intends to lead the Argentinians in one direction and the rest of us in another. We are a universal Church. But perhaps you are right, and his intention is to mislead one party - but I can’t go with that view as it is too uncharitable.

 

[Ginny89]

For me, this reading is what one concludes reading AL in context, not as isolated paragraphs. The Argentinian exchange buttresses that reading.

The Argentinians asked (I paraphrase): “Please confirm we have the correct understanding of this section of AL Holy Father”. Pope answers: "You have exactly the correct understanding of Chapter 8 of AL. There is no other interpretation. Full stop.

The Vatican confirmed the Pope’s letter was authentic. I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude that the Pope intends to lead the Argentinians in one direction and the rest of us in another. We are a universal Church. But perhaps you are right, and his intention is to mislead one party - but I can’t go with that view as it is too uncharitable.

I didnt speak of the pope intending to mislead. It is telling when an interlocuter starts misrepresenting others’ positions. I said his intentions about what AL mean do not matter as much as what AL actually says. We are not promised unerroneous papal understanding, just teaching. And teachings to the whole church do not come from leaked private mail.

And will you answe ANY of the many questions I have posed to you regarding your arguments on this thread? Any at all?

And speaking of context, mine is 2000 years of catholic teaching and understanding of marriage and other sacraments. How is divorcing AL from this larger context more valid unless one regards each pope as an isolated unit?

 

[Rau]

The pope has been asked more direct questions that would remove all ambiguity and has refused to do answer them. Mind explaining that if the pope has been as clear as you purport he has?

Clear? What? Where did I say that? No, AL is not clear. But he is seeking to say something, and I’m drawing my conclusions in the manner I’ve described - on weight of evidence.

What is the difficulty in yes and no regarding things he has already, according to you, set a clear direction on in explicit teachings given to the church as such?

No more strawmen plse Ginny! I’ve not suggested AL is clear - I’ve said the reverse. But that doesn’t prevent one forming a judgement about the most likely intended interpretation based on what is said, the context and other authentic information.

…IT [clarity] IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE POPE DOES NOT WANT TO PROVIDE IT.

That’s your interpretation, but may very well be true. Though he was clear in giving guidance to the Argentinians about the meaning of AL in a letter that the Vatican confirms is authentic. That is explicit - no interpretation needed.

I also notice they have nothing to do with any particular sin, such as a sin of remarriage and continued sexual sins. Just an acknowledgement that we cannot know the full subjective situation of a person who is committing grave sin. Again, nothing to see here.

Unless one takes note of the subject of the document, and the surrounding text. The document is not a general treatise on sin.

And the document is not just saying “we can’t see the full subjective situation” - it’s saying that the actual subjective situation may be such as to greatly lessen culpability.

 

[Rau]

I didnt speak of the pope intending to mislead… I said his intentions about what AL mean do not matter as much as what AL actually says.

The Pope has confirmed to the Argentinian Bishops that they have the correct understanding of AL. I agree that he is not misleading them.

We are not promised unerroneous papal understanding, just teaching. And teachings to the whole church do not come from leaked private mail.

So then he has communicated erroneously to the Argentine Bishops? All that remains is whether he did he did so intentionally?

And will you answe ANY of the many questions I have posed to you regarding your arguments on this thread? Any at all?

I’ve not made any arguments - I’ve purposely chosen not to debate here what is theologically correct. For me the thread is about what various Bishops have understood and are doing, the differences (which is disturbing) and the meaning we can take from AL - that’s what I’ve tried to extract. I’m not making personal arguments about what is right. Not without quite a bit more understanding of AL and the various interpretations of it.

And speaking of context, mine is 2000 years of catholic teaching and understanding of marriage and other sacraments. How is divorcing AL from this larger context more valid unless one regards each pope as an isolated unit?

It can’t be entirely divorced. AL references much of it.

 

[Ginny89]

RAU, you saying that AL’s meaning isnt clear confuses me: So what exactly is your problem with my posts, such as this?

I think it is clear what Pope Francis’ personal position is. I am not arguing that. I am simply denying that he has put this “position” explicitly in AL. Instead he used very vague language that can be read perfectly in keeping with the past teaching and practice. It can also be read in a heterodox manner. It is this possibility, proved by bishops in Germany, Canada, Malta and Argentina that had the cardinals put forth the dubia. Because AL is vague and open to abuse. I am not denying that it was made vague quite delibetately by the pope to allow the Argentiniam position without having to explicitly say it to the church himself.

Cardinal Muller said that if Pope Francis wanted to change doctrine or practice he would have done so in a clear manner. Seeing as he did not, the responsible catholic thing to do is not to set aside teachings and laws that have not been set aside by any authority yet. This means it is those who insist that AL changes doctrine or practice who carry the burden of showing where it does so precisely.

I believe Pope Francis is wrong in the direction he has taken but I also believe he has not taught this direction to the church as catholic teaching. Some believe it is because the Holy Spirit has prevented him from doing so. Me? I am still waiting. What I do know, there is not one passage in AL that says that continence and repentance are no longer necessary to approach communion for those in this situation.

So lets get this straight:

1. You ask for my interpretation of AL
2. I give it to you explaining that it is unclear and can be read in keeping with the Cardinal Muller Position or the Argentinian one or the Maltese/German/Canadian one.
3. You come back arguing “No- it cant; the Argentinian one is the correct one”, and even say things about unanimity about AL being meant to change/add stuff.
4. I SAY to you that there is no such clarity
5. And then you accuse me for “strawmen” about your claims on clarity.

So are you or are you NOT insisting that AL cannot be read in keeping with the rest of the church’s magisterium that precedes it? You cant have your cake and eat it too.

I acknowledged the possibility of all these interpretations as far as AL goes. It is YOU who is challenging the possibility of the ONE interpretation that does not deny previous teaching. The one that does not divorce AL from the rest of the magisterium in a “hermeneutic of discontinuity”.

Moreover, you are demanding that you ought to advance such arguments and have me not draw the logical conclusion from the arguments you are making that there is clarity that AL reverses JP II’s teaching that sacraments are not available to couples who don’t commit to incontinence.

This just too much runarounds to keep up with

And No! It is not in contention that Pope Francis DID write the letter to the Argentinians: Now THAT, is an example of a strawman.