Cardinal Burke - ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church

[Brendan_64]

Have you read the entire document yet? I’m waiting for a hard copy since I have difficulty comprehending (more than usual) anything lengthy that I try to read on the internet.

I have the entire document saved on my desktop and have only read parts of it.

I read several chapters of it and then went to the ‘controversial’ chapter 8. It is difficult reading on screen, and the page format of the document doesn’t help either.

I admit that, at first, parts of the document disturbed me, but with subsequent reflection and a talk about it with a good priest who I trust, I now believe that the document does not essentially change anything. I was reassured to see Cardinal Burke’s remarks, which have also helped put things in perspective.

 

[JimG]

Here is something I did not realize. I have long been aware of the biblical text noted below. I just assumed that it was being read at least at some point in the Lectionary cycle. But it is not. And perhaps that explains part of our current thinking about communion.

“. . .** in keeping with a programmatic decision to avoid what they considered “difficult” biblical texts, the revised Lectionary altogether omits 1 Corinthians 11:27–29. St. Paul’s “stern warning” against receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, that is, unto one’s damnation, has not been read at any Ordinary Form Mass for almost half a century.**

Let us be frank: the concept of an unworthy communion has disappeared from the general Catholic consciousness, at least in the affluent, self-satisfied West.”


The Omission that Haunts the Church: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

 

[irenaeus1]

I am not in a position to counsel anybody.

So you don’t worry about certain of the spiritual works of mercy?

 

[irenaeus1]

It seems to me that nothing has changed. The Church still believes what Jesus taught about the permanence of marriage. It teaches that a valid, consummated sacramental marriage can be dissolved only by death.

The only question in my mind is whether a change in practice might in practice deny the teaching. Can a person in a second marriage act as though the first marriage were effectively dissolved? I don’t think that will happen, but then why the confusion about it?

And that’s the issue. If the document is claiming that the indissolubility of marriage is left intact, then in order to get around the issue of admitting divorced and remarried individuals to Holy Communion means compromising doctrine elsewhere, just not the doctrine on marriage. So for instance, either the sinful nature of sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse is not really that grave, or repentance with a firm purpose of amendment is not longer needed to be absolved from sin, or one no longer needs to be in the state of grace to receive Holy Communion. Something has to give in order to legitimize this supposed ‘new’ opening.

 

[irenaeus1]

So let’s play this out, leaving aside for a moment natural marriage, and looking at Christian marriage (i.e., marriage between two baptized people). A man and a woman are married. The teaching of the Church, on the basis of scripture, is that the married couple is not to divorce. Why?.. because they have made a covenant with each other and with God, they are now one flesh, marriage is to represent the relationship of Christ and the Church, marriage is indissoluble and no one shall separate what God has joined together, etc. [Amoris Laetitia does a wonderful job teaching this portion]. But, after a certain amount of time for whatever reason, the couple decides to separate and divorce. The teaching of the Church, on the basis of scripture, is that the married couple is to repent of their divorce (and of whatever may have contributed to the failure of the relationship) and is either to be reconciled to one another or remain single [Amoris Laetitia is silent here]. But, after a certain amount of time for whatever reason, one or the other (or both) decide to remarry entering into a second union. The teaching of the Church, on the basis of scripture, is that separated and remarried persons (one or the other or both) are now in an adulterous situation [Amoris Laetitia hints at this by citing the relevant passages of scripture that address this without actually quoting them] and they are to repent and separate [Amoris Laetitia is silent here], or if some time has elapsed such that a new family has formed and more damage could be incurred from the separation (such as the potential with the involvement of children) [Amoris Laetitia briefly mentions this obstacle], then they are to repent and live in continence, otherwise their adulterous situation continues [Amoris Laetitia is silent here]. In fact, Amoris Laetitia states that, if a divorced and remarried couple find it too difficult to abstain from sexual relations and considers that continence may cause undue suffering to the children, then …[Amoris Laetitia is silent here] .

Amoris Laetitia scarcely acknowledges any culpability for sin, and in fact, makes one wonder what all the bother is about mercy. Mercy, after all, presumes some sort of guilt involved from which mercy is needed, and the associated consequence or punishment that is deserved is mitigated. But mercy is emptied of its meaning if no guilt was ever incurred and no consequence was ever deserved. Amoris Laetitia scarcely mentions repenting of anything in regards to those who have entered into a second union because it hardly acknowledges any responsibility for sin or whether sin is even present at all, and in fact, implies that God may actually ask one to remain in a situation of objective sin.

 

[OraLabora]

So you don’t worry about certain of the spiritual works of mercy?

I’m not interested in playing rhetorical games. Stick to the topic.

I said when asked, I advise people to peak to someone who is qualified to help them. I didn’t say I ignore them.

 

[irenaeus1]

I’m not interested in playing rhetorical games. Stick to the topic.

I said when asked, I advise people to peak to someone who is qualified to help them. I didn’t say I ignore them.

I’m not interested either. I merely quoted you verbatim and simply asked a follow-up question. And I would agree that there are occasions when one might refer someone to someone more qualified. But I work with RCIA, adult faith formation, high school seniors, and a men’s faith small group, and it would not make sense to not be at least somewhat equipped to counsel, instruct, and/or admonish without having to continually defer and pass them on to someone else. And this is very germane to the topic as AL will obviously be the topic debated for some time to come.

 

[Ender]

It’s not the issue of divorce no longer evoking surprise. It’s the issue that something that happens in private is nobody’s business. If we accept that continent D&R couples can receive the Eucharist, then the Church herself has de facto admitted that merely living under the same roof is not a scandal. Therefore we are not to be scandalized by a divorced couple going up for communion because it is our Christian duty to always assume in charity the best of people, i.e. if a couple we know to be divorced is going up for communion, we assume that it is because they are continent. If they are not, it is a private matter between them, God and their confessor.

Clearly this is not how the church sees the matter, otherwise there would be no reason to insist that the remarried-but-continent couple receive in private. The obligation to assume the best does not include ignoring the apparent. You have reversed the expectation here.Given that the fact that these faithful are not living* more uxorio* is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only *remoto scandalo. *(Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
Nor can public behavior ever be considered merely a private matter. This is the whole point of the church’s concern with scandal.

…factors can mitigate sin to reduce culpability. In the chapter on irregular situations, Pope Francis doesn’t divide them into categories. I think it is reasonably clear then, that he intends it to apply to all irregular situations. There is no “interpretation” needed. It’s written clearly enough to me, that we can accept it at face value and stop trying to “spin” it.

That it is anything but clear is obvious from the variety of interpretations it has already received, a variety that will become ever more manifest as “it” is implemented across the world. It is simply ludicrous to assume that the interpretation it will be given in Germany will resemble even slightly the interpretation it will receive in Ghana. There will be no uniformity between dioceses in the US and even within single dioceses there will be priest shopping to search out those with the most expansive view of the matter.

But a few situations exist where people (in particularly women) were abandoned, or severely abused or the children abused, and had to leave, and may have remarried, perhaps many years ago and are in a stable relationship with children from the second union.

What bearing does fault for the failure of the marriage have on the validity of that marriage? It may well be true that the fault can reveal a defect that had always existed, but it is still the validity of the marriage that matters, not fault for its failure. Are you suggesting that if one partner bears zero fault for the failure of the marriage he is free to marry a second time? If that’s not what you’re saying then you need to explain how fault overrides validity in justifying a remarriage.

These are hard cases, and I expect that is where the “wiggle room”, and in particularly the need for mercy exists.

How does mercy enter into this? If a person may properly receive communion then it is justice that permits it, not mercy, and if a person may not properly receive communion then it is the opposite of mercy to aid him in a grave sin.

Ender

 

[pleasant]

please take a look at para 303; it says in part….and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. I…
The way this reads, a person in a sinful situation figures that “God himself” wants him to be there; God wants a person to be in sin.
Is this in the catechism? Is this in the Gospel? Can someone find a reference for this concept?

 

[OraLabora]

please take a look at para 303; it says in part…*.and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking *amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. I…
The way this reads, a person in a sinful situation figures that “God himself” wants him to be there; God wants a person to be in sin.
Is this in the catechism? Is this in the Gospel? Can someone find a reference for this concept?

That’s not it at all.

It is saying that God has an ideal that we often fall short of. As my confessor is fond of telling me, God expects effort, but understands when our effort falls short. God expects our maximum effort, but forgives if it falls short of the ideal.

If that were not the case, we’d all fall into the sin of despair. We should never despair of God’s mercy when even in spite of effort we fall short, fail, or simply fall back into sin. That is what is understood by the “moral security”.

 

[pleasant]

more of para 303, to get the context.
*conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking *
There is not a mention of confession or purpose of amendment, just a realization of being short of the ideal and that “God himself is asking” the person to be there. That’s what it says…God is asking for a sinful situation for now.
Why is there a need to re-interpret to something else? I don’t get it…an Exhortation is a teaching.
Thanks for participating.

 

[JosieN]

That’s not it at all.

It is saying that God has an ideal that we often fall short of. As my confessor is fond of telling me, God expects effort, but understands when our effort falls short. God expects our maximum effort, but forgives if it falls short of the ideal.

If that were not the case, we’d all fall into the sin of despair. We should never despair of God’s mercy when even in spite of effort we fall short, fail, or simply fall back into sin. That is what is understood by the “moral security”.

When you fall short, you need not fall into despair. If your soul and willpower are not good enough yet to avoid these sins, don’t say “oh well I tried” then repeat it. Ask for God’s help. Fast and pray. Make it part of your day until the temptation goes away and you have beat this thing. A good soul finds it easy but most of us struggle to make our hearts pure and pleasing. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gave His life for us, we must never forget His sacrifice. When you are forgiven by a priest it is because of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. He gave us this gift by His suffering. If our efforts fall short we must do better. God’s mercy is not to be used as a replacement for true repentance and a lack of effort.

 

[johnnyc176]

I’m not interested either. I merely quoted you verbatim and simply asked a follow-up question. And I would agree that there are occasions when one might refer someone to someone more qualified. But I work with RCIA, adult faith formation, high school seniors, and a men’s faith small group, and it would not make sense to not be at least somewhat equipped to counsel, instruct, and/or admonish without having to continually defer and pass them on to someone else. And this is very germane to the topic as AL will obviously be the topic debated for some time to come.

Yeah the denial of the Spiritual Works of Mercy counseling, instructing and admonishing or the refusal to acknowledge them is usually a trait of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II crowd. I think it’s more to the point of denying a sin is a sin. If something is not a sin there is no need to counsel about it lol. Just look at some of the liberal reactions of AL I read one where they interpreted AL in such a way that Pope Francis is really for contraception and will soon change that teaching of Jesus.

 

[JosieN]

Yeah the denial of the Spiritual Works of Mercy counseling, instructing and admonishing or the refusal to acknowledge them is usually a trait of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II crowd. I think it’s more to the point of denying a sin is a sin. If something is not a sin there is no need to counsel about it lol. Just look at some of the liberal reactions of AL I read one where they interpreted AL in such a way that Pope Francis is really for contraception and will soon change that teaching of Jesus.

I think this article explains it all very well.

Situation Ethics Enshrined
Francis’ Amoris Laetitia
A simple Q & A on Certain Aspects of the Post-Synodal Exhortation

By John Vennari

cfnews.org/page88/files/88cd932e0fb30da936d547131dbddacf-571.html

 

[JackyB]

I think this article explains it all very well.

Situation Ethics Enshrined
Francis’ Amoris Laetitia
A simple Q & A on Certain Aspects of the Post-Synodal Exhortation

By John Vennari

cfnews.org/page88/files/88cd932e0fb30da936d547131dbddacf-571.html

Thanks Josie,

 

[pnewton]

I think this article explains it all very well.

It doesn’t explain it “well”. It insults the Holy Father. From the article.

Francis effectively canonizes situation ethics. He furtively opens the door for Communion to the divorced and remarried on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, which destroys key elements of Catholic Moral Theology.

There is nothing Catholic about John Vennari’s insults. Furthermore “Catholic” Family News, uses the name “Catholic”. Groups that use do this illicitly like Catholics for a Free Choice, should not be used as a reference for faithful Catholics, and for the same reason.

It is the most offensive and ignorant letter I have read yet on the subject of the new encyclical, building an entire blog article on a the logical fallacy of begging the question of what a misunderstanding of situational ethics are (is?).

Thumbs up? I would rather give it.:nope:

 

[JosieN]

It doesn’t explain it “well”. It insults the Holy Father. From the article.
There is nothing Catholic about John Vennari’s insults. Furthermore “Catholic” Family News, uses the name “Catholic”. Groups that use do this illicitly like Catholics for a Free Choice, should not be used as a reference for faithful Catholics, and for the same reason.

It is the most offensive and ignorant letter I have read yet on the subject of the new encyclical, building an entire blog article on a the logical fallacy of begging the question of what a misunderstanding of situational ethics are (is?).

Thumbs up? I would rather give it.:nope:

This is a forum. It is a place to discuss and share opinions. I like to have an open mind and I read many articles and opinions, some may be not to your liking but others might want to read it. It is their choice.

 

[pnewton]

This is a forum. It is a place to discuss and share opinions. .

Yes, and I posted mine. If someone quoted Catholics for a Free Choice to give a pro-abortion opinion, I think it quite legitimate to point out they were not using the name “Catholic” legitimately. That is what I did.

 

[JosieN]

Yes, and I posted mine. If someone quoted Catholics for a Free Choice to give a pro-abortion opinion, I think it quite legitimate to point out they were not using the name “Catholic” legitimately. That is what I did.

I do not understand why you say it is not legitimately “Catholic” .

Catholic Family News is a monthly journal dedicated to preserving the Catholic Faith of all time, “in the same meaning and the same explanation” as Catholic doctrine has been taught throughout the ages.

They are dedicated to upholding the Latin Tridentine Mass, the Anti-Modernist measures of Pope St. Pius X, the Message of Our Lady of Fatima, and the richness, beauty and holiness of the Catholic Faith of all time.

 

[Brendan]

I think this article explains it all very well.]

To be honest, it is a very poor article.

It makes unsubstantialted claims. For example. it cites #304 as an example of such 'situational ethics"

It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of the human being

That is an accurate statement of traditional Catholic Moral Theology. Catholic Moral Theology looks at matter, intent and knowledge.

By this articles token, the Eucharistic Fast is ‘situational ethics’, you must fast one hour before the reception of Holy Communion. But if a person is diabetic and drinks some juice or has a mint to bring up their blood sugar… that, per this article, becomes ‘situational ethics’

And then, the article even contradicts itself

Not surprisingly, Francis’ Amoris Laetitia undermines natural law, claiming that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions.” (#305)
In other words, natural law is only at the level of “inspiration” that one may take or leave as the individual works out his “deeply personal process” of deciding one’s own moral behavior.

Note that +Francis specially refers to OBJECTIVE inspiration, a word they conveniently leave out in their condemnation of the article. If something is OBJECTIVE, that is the opposite of being SUBJECTIVE. So which is it?

Finally, such a definition goes against Aquinas definition of the Natural Law, which is an inclination towards the Good. (ST I-II, Q94 a3) To make a claim that the Natural Law is an ‘established set of rules’ would be to go against the Angelic Doctor, so +Francis is on good, solid Moral Theologic grounds to decry such as assessment

Really bad journalism.