Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year

[Blue_Horizon]

I have an appliance that has a shut off function that prevents operation when a known hazardous condition is present. It is tempting to wire a bypass, to eliminate that “obstacle”, or technical reason. Should I?

As an electronic design Engineer who designs in such appliance “shut off” functions as you call them I believe I am qualified to answer your question. (Perhaps you own a Fisher and Paykel Dryer or Washing Machine).

We cannot know all circumstances and conditions that an appliance has to operate under.
We put in place safeguards to protect the appliance when used under normally expected conditions.

However if the appliance is used in abnormal circumstances then yes, if you know what you are doing, then such safeguards can be bypassed without damaging the appliance any further than the abnormal conditions themselves present and may make the appliance work better in those abnormal conditions.

For example, when we stress test our appliances (50 at a time) before production release we may bypass some of our safeguards which inhibit what we need to do under those conditions.

Passing the analogy back to the Catholic community we are living in stressfull times. Pope Francis simply assumes this as a given, we are in a battle field. Medical procedures that would be fool-hardy in a well equipped New York hospital can be life-saving in Afghanistan.

Divorce and remarriage is no longer a phenomenon on the borders of the Church community, it is as endemic within also. This suggests the problem cannot always be assumed to be due to malice but overpowering wordly influences on basically good people of God. Yes, the old safeguards do not always do the job they should because assumed conditions for when they were put in place have radically changed.

 

[Richca]

To take an obvious example, a woman abandoned by her abusive husband who remarries to provide for her children might be in the same legal category as the philandering playboy who ditches his wife for a younger model, but no one could claim that both are in the same moral category.

They are both in the same category as being in an unlawful marriage. The marriage bond is indissoluble while the lawful spouse is still alive. A woman abandoned by her abusive husband is not a new phenomenon of modern times. This has been going on since apostolic times and before this since the time of Adam and Eve. Likewise the philandering playboy scenario.

Imagine that the woman in the first case, over time, experienced a radical conversion in her life, and is today an active member of the church community. Let us suppose she cannot, for technical reasons, obtain an annulment (these are rare cases), and the first husband has long since remarried.

 

[Thomas_White]

[Besides the teaching of Jesus in the gospels which is clear and simple, St Paul takes this command of the Lord up in 1 Corin. 7: 10-11:
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

“To be married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband–and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

During the time of Jesus on the earth, a woman could not under the Law divorce her husband, though she could “separate” from him (i.e., leave him). However, a man could divorce his wife. What is not mentioned in the verse quoted above is the status of a divorced woman or a man whose wife separates from him. With reference to the verses concerning divorce and adultery in Matthew, Mark and Luke (re: comment #250), I do not believe this was an unintended omission but rather that the verse means precisely what it says and no more.
[/quote]

 

[Tomdstone]

Extra-marital sex is unlawful, it is a sin and it involves grave matter…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Richca;14375520:

There are other actions which are mortal sins, but have the clergy allowed the reception of Holy Communion, even when knowing about these sins. Take for example, the buying and selling of humans at auctions just as you would buy and sell a pig. Were slave owners allowed to receive Holy Communion, even when it was known that they owned slaves and did not intend to free them? Is it true that even clergy owned slaves?

I suppose it is true. After all, clergy are humans, and humans can sin.

The fact that the vast majority of humans who are past the age of reason and capable of sinning despite knowing actions are sinful usually DO sin does not make the law against said sins ‘wrong’ though, does it?

But you have to realize that with regard to slavery in the U.S. and Britain, that slavery was not considered by many Christians, not even some Catholic Christians, as being mortally sinful. While Popes had condemned chattel slavery for centuries, again, individual Christians and even individual priests (I think fairly seldom bishops, at least after the 18th century, but bishops did not live in our times of easy communication and access and therefore could not possibly be aware that in some community hundreds of miles away a given priest might be telling him, “Oh yes I am certainly following the Church and telling the people to release their slaves” but was actually telling said people, “If your CONSCIENCE is clear about this and you are treating slaves well and at some point hope for freedom nudge wink you’re good”) could go against teaching and tell people, who again did not have easy communication or even sometimes literacy or knowledge, that they were OK when they were not.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

While I believe in absolute truth, I do not believe everything is absolutely true or false. Those are two very different questions.

My answer to your question would be that one must never receive communion while in a state of mortal sin, but knowing if someone is in a state of mortal sin is something that God, and the individual, can know.

That is as simple as I can put it without a better definition of terms.

I do understand you, but I think, and I have seen this demonstrated over the past 40 years and more, that we are making the definition of ‘knowing’ into something so vague and limitless that we wind up with having literally nothing that can ‘truly’ be known. The cult of the individual is so firmly in place that we can really have no absolute that can held to apply to ‘all’. It seems there is always an ‘exception to the rule’ and that when that is accepted, the exceptions themselves become the rule, and the rule is swept away.

Look at contraception and the Lambeth Conference in 1930. It was supposed to be ‘an exception’ only for those in the married state, entered into under guidance, for grave reason. Look at it now. There are literally NO exceptions to those who ‘may’ engage in contraception in those churches. It went from being a grave exception to the moral law that such was a moral wrong, to being something that is now no longer considered wrong at all, and even more, something that is praiseworthy and to be applied not just to those who seek it, but to those who are judged by OTHERS to be ‘in need of it’ --i.e. women in Africa so that they aren’t ‘punished with a child’.

 

[billy15]

This is probably the central point of the whole issue of “adultery”.
Even Jesus distinguished between those who actively commit adultery and those who are made to do so passively as it were.

I agree.

Yet we would allow such a repentant prostitute to Communion provided she confessed regularly and tried to extricate from her circumstances but we will not so allow the same woman who remarries instead.

Sure, the physical necessities/circumstances today are not so bleak…but the psychological barriers and limited choices still remain just as strong.

Is this not shameful and inconsistent Church practice?

No, it is not shameful nor inconsistent, because the premise you’ve given is false. The Church does allow that remarried woman, like the repentant prostitute, to receive the Eucharist provided she goes to Confession and resolves not to fall into sin by having sexual relations with her second husband (from the civil marriage). If she slips up, then like the prostitute she should return to Confession, make her Act of Contrition, and resolve to not slip up again.

But we are human, so slip ups happen; that’s what concupiscence does to us, right? However, what we see some proposing (i.e., the guidelines from the Diocese of San Diego) is that the woman in this case doesn’t need to have a firm purpose of amendment. She doesn’t need to “firmly resolve, with the help of [God’s grace], to sin no more”… she can make up her mind to receive the Eucharist while still knowingly engaging in fornication, without the intention and resolve to stop, or while failing to extricate herself from her circumstances by remaining chaste with her civilly married (2nd) husband. This is wrong.

I do not see it quite this way. My own pastoral experience indicates to me and most clergy that in fact God does leave many people hanging in this imperfect world…

Normal graces simply do not work instantaneously any pastor worth his salt knows such things take time for some people even with all the best will in the world.

Of course; obviously God works on His own time and the graces we receive from Him might not (and usually won’t) manifest instantaneously. But they can and will in the long term, provided we cooperate with our Lord.

I find your first two sentences I quoted here pretty scary, I honestly mean that. “God does leave many people hanging?” Does He give us trials, or maybe even chastise us? Of course! As St. Alphonsus Liguori said: “[W]hen God chastises us upon the earth, it is not because He wishes to injure us, but because He wishes us well, and loves us. …God does not afflict us in this life for our injury but for our good, in order that we may cease from sin, and by recovering His grace escape eternal punishment.” But to say that He will leave many people hanging in this world indefinitely… I don’t believe that for a second. I have more faith in our Lord than that.

First off, the Church has always taught that man must cooperate with the grace given to us from God. The CCC states, emphasis in original:

“The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace… God brings to completion in us what he has begun, ‘since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it.’ God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him.” (CCC 2001, 2002)

We Christians have free will to choose or accept God’s grace in our lives; if we reject it, we can’t blame God for leaving us or another one hanging. We must be sincere in our willingness to combat sin when we are tempted by it (and that temptation would be admittedly very often for one who cohabitates with a second civil spouse) so that we may be disposed to receive God’s grace.

Furthermore, this is reiterated very clearly and lucidly by Pope St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. In the third chapter of this encyclical, St. John Paul fittingly entitled it “Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power- (1 Cor 1:17) - Moral good for the life of the Church and of the world”. I believe this is effectively what your statement implies by declaring that “God does leave many people hanging”. The saving Cross of Christ is strong enough to pick anyone up left hanging, granted we work with our Lord.

In this chapter, St. John Paul speaks directly to this thought that the Cross is not powerful enough to help us, and I’ll quote him at length because it’s so relevant to our discussion and full of amazing insight. Italic emphases are original, bolded emphases mine::

1. The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man’s true freedom… [O]nly by obedience to universal moral norms does man find full confirmation of his personal uniqueness and the possibility of authentic moral growth… When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone.

1. Even in the most difficult situations man must respect the norm of morality so that he can be obedient to God’s holy commandment and consistent with his own dignity as a person. Certainly, maintaining a harmony between freedom and truth occasionally demands uncommon sacrifices… But temptations can be overcome, sins can be avoided, because together with the commandments the Lord gives us the possibility of keeping them: “His eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of man. He has not commanded any one to be ungodly, and he has not given any one permission to sin” (Sir 15:19-20).

 

[billy15]

102.Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of the Church’s tradition, and was expressed by the Council of Trent: “But no one, however much justified, ought to consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments, nor should he employ that rash statement, forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the commandments of God are impossible of observance by one who is justified. For God does not command the impossible, but in commanding he admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you. His commandments are not burdensome (cf. 1 Jn 5:3); his yoke is easy and his burden light (cf. Mt 11:30)”.162

1. Man always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom.

It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer (cf. Jn 19:34), that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep God’s holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships. As Saint Andrew of Crete observes, the law itself “was enlivened by grace and made to serve it in a harmonious and fruitful combination. Each element preserved its characteristics without change or confusion. In a divine manner, he turned what could be burdensome and tyrannical into what is easy to bear and a source of freedom”.

*Only in the mystery of Christ’s Redemption do we discover the “concrete” possibilities of man. *"It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question”… f redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act.

1. [W]e should take to heart the message of the Gospel parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (cf. Lk 18:9-14). The tax collector might possibly have had some justification for the sins he committed, such as to diminish his responsibility. But his prayer does not dwell on such justifications, but rather on his own unworthiness before God’s infinite holiness: "God, be merciful to me a sinner! " (Lk 18:13). The Pharisee, on the other hand, is self-justified, finding some excuse for each of his failings. Here we encounter two different attitudes of the moral conscience of man in every age.

1. In the moral life the Christian’s royal service is also made evident and effective: with the help of grace, the more one obeys the new law of the Holy Spirit, the more one grows in the freedom to which he or she is called by the service of truth, charity and justice.

In section 102, St. John Paul quotes a section from the Council of Trent that had been posted in this subforum recently, and was dismissed for being out of context in regards to the divorced and remarried receiving Communion. St. John Paul uses it in context perfectly here. It might be really hard to keep the commandment to not fornicate and commit adultery with a second, civil spouse; it might even be perceived as too much a burden to live as brother and sister as I’ve seen some say here… but nothing is impossible with God. So long as we cooperate with His grace, we will persevere. I have the utmost faith in that. St. Andrew of Crete is right on, “enlivened by grace… what could be burdensome… is easy to bear”.

But I would, and should be, treated as an adulterer if I have a sexual relationship with someone who is not my wife…

I do not believe this is the import of Mt 5:32, at least not for the woman abandoned…

I disagree. If I break my vows at any time by having sex with someone who is not my spouse, I have committed adultery, fornication. The day I was married to my wife, I vowed to “be faithful to her… all the days of my life.” I did not vow to “be faithful to her… all the days of my life, unless she cheats on me, doesn’t regret it, and leaves me.” Indeed, Pope Francis reminds us in AL that “It needs to be stressed that these words cannot be reduced to the present; they involve a totality that includes the future: ‘until death do us part’… Indeed, let us consider the damage caused, in our culture of global communication, by the escalation of unkept promises…” (AL 214)

Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. If my wife breaks her vows, I do not have the right to break mine. If she breaks her vows in the future, that’s her problem. His Holiness remarks that the exchange of consent “includes the future”. I won’t dismiss my vows if this occurs. As Richa said above, in the case of the abandoned wife we’re discussing, “who is to say that this husband possibly through the prayers of the wife may not have a change of heart sometime in the future and then want to be reconciled back to his wife?” If she commits adultery too, thereby breaking her vows, is she really in a position to pray for the marriage’s reconciliation? And if a reconciliation is out of the question, again, there is no right on the part of the wife to break the vows of a presumed valid marriage.

 

[billy15]

Sometimes men are more proud of being strong, keeping their vows, than actually loving God…and those who failed to be strong may well have the greater love.

The implications of what you’ve said here are pretty serious; you claim to know the hearts of “some” men. Which men? This is very judgmental, and I for one won’t judge the hearts of men who keep their vows, because I don’t claim to know what’s in their hearts. For my part at least, I am NOT more proud of being strong than loving my God. I keep my vows because I love my wife, and even more so, because I love my God. Pride is something all men struggle with, but I do my best, with the help of God’s grace, to come to an even greater conversion so that I may put Him first in all things, loving Him with all my heart.

While the poverty of the English language requires us to say that even abandoned wives who remarry for the sake of their children are technically guilty of “adultery”…

Generally, I’d agree with you regarding the English language. But not here. I’m still not convinced by your reasoning of an “indirect” adultery, as the word “adultery” in the English language is very direct and clear: “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” So no, a woman whose been abandoned by her lawful husband, yet voluntarily has sex with another man hasn’t just “technically” committed adultery… she just simply has, without qualification.

Only one sort was targeted in the Commandments…the other may not be unworthy of Jesus’s loving gaze…and Communion

What is “the other” then? The “indirect” adultery you speak of? How do you define it, and how do you prove Jesus did not consider “the other” to be a sin?

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife…makes her the victim of adultery…"

I believe your application of this verse to the abandoned and civilly remarried wife we’re talking about is off. Jesus is talking about a woman who has been left by her husband; He mentions nothing about this woman remarrying elsewhere, so it’s safe to reason He’s talking about a woman who has not remarried. You’ve quoted the NIV here; it’s virtually the only Bible translation that translates this verse as “makes her the victim of adultery”. None of the Catholic Bible translations do so. As Fr. Paul Mankowski, S.J. notes:

limiting ourselves to the New Testament Greek usage, the most natural translation of poiei autēn moicheuthēnai… would be the conventional “he makes her commit adultery”. By putting more weight on the active and middle attestations with female subjects, one might stretch the range of the passive infinitive to find a gentler nuance (cf. the RSV-2CE: “[he] makes her an adulteress”).

Now that we have the right translation, what does this mean? “How does a man by divorcing his wife make her an adulteress?” Fr. Mankowski explains in his book HERE, in the paragraph immediately after the 22nd footnote:

Not by forcing her into sexual congress with other men. The point is that she cannot marry- at least not in righteousness- inasmuch as and as long as the man who has known her carnally as her true husband is still alive. Thus she bears the taint and the disqualifications of the adulteress in virtue of a decision made not by her but by her husband, and it is this injustice that Jesus condemns. Note that Jesus is not inveighing against Judaic restrictions against divorcées; nowhere does He suggest that a more equitable or godly dispensation would permit a divorcée to remarry. The weight of the opprobrium falls on the man who makes his wife subject to such hardships.

Given this analysis, I don’t see how Matt 5:32 can be used to say that an abandoned wife, who civilly remarried, is somehow allowed to receive Communion while actively committing adultery without the resolve or intention to stop.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree.

No, it is not shameful nor inconsistent, because the premise you’ve given is false. The Church does allow that remarried woman, like the repentant prostitute, to receive the Eucharist provided she goes to Confession and resolves not to fall into sin by having sexual relations with her second husband (from the civil marriage). If she slips up, then like the prostitute she should return to Confession, make her Act of Contrition, and resolve to not slip up again.

But we are human, so slip ups happen; that’s what concupiscence does to us, right? However, what we see some proposing (i.e., the guidelines from the Diocese of San Diego) is that the woman in this case doesn’t need to have a firm purpose of amendment. She doesn’t need to “firmly resolve, with the help of [God’s grace], to sin no more”… she can make up her mind to receive the Eucharist while still knowingly engaging in fornication, without the intention and resolve to stop, or while failing to extricate herself from her circumstances by remaining chaste with her civilly married (2nd) husband. This is wrong.

Of course; obviously God works on His own time and the graces we receive from Him might not (and usually won’t) manifest instantaneously. But they can and will in the long term, provided we cooperate with our Lord.

I find your first two sentences I quoted here pretty scary, I honestly mean that. “God does leave many people hanging?” Does He give us trials, or maybe even chastise us? Of course! As St. Alphonsus Liguori said: “[W]hen God chastises us upon the earth, it is not because He wishes to injure us, but because He wishes us well, and loves us. …God does not afflict us in this life for our injury but for our good, in order that we may cease from sin, and by recovering His grace escape eternal punishment.” But to say that He will leave many people hanging in this world indefinitely… I don’t believe that for a second. I have more faith in our Lord than that.

First off, the Church has always taught that man must cooperate with the grace given to us from God. The CCC states, emphasis in original:

We Christians have free will to choose or accept God’s grace in our lives; if we reject it, we can’t blame God for leaving us or another one hanging. We must be sincere in our willingness to combat sin when we are tempted by it (and that temptation would be admittedly very often for one who cohabitates with a second civil spouse) so that we may be disposed to receive God’s grace.

Furthermore, this is reiterated very clearly and lucidly by Pope St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. In the third chapter of this encyclical, St. John Paul fittingly entitled it “Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power- (1 Cor 1:17) - Moral good for the life of the Church and of the world”. I believe this is effectively what your statement implies by declaring that “God does leave many people hanging”. The saving Cross of Christ is strong enough to pick anyone up left hanging, granted we work with our Lord.

In this chapter, St. John Paul speaks directly to this thought that the Cross is not powerful enough to help us, and I’ll quote him at length because it’s so relevant to our discussion and full of amazing insight. Italic emphases are original, bolded emphases mine::

You misunderstand my observations. If a woman is forced to marry another to survive then she is also forced/obligated to pay the marital debt as an integral part of that victim “choice”.
If it is accepted by the Church that sometimes the remarried should continue to cohabit for the sake of the children then it is somewhat inconsistent to not accept the wife willingly pay the debt to her sincere husband…not all husbands can suddenly accept a change of heart by his wife 5 years into their happy marriage.

So I am with Pope Francis if he is allowing an opening for some couples in this situation to receive Communion if abstaining cohabitation is discerned by the PP to be an unrealistic demand as it would destabilize the very cohabitation already accepted as the best moral option available in their situation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The implications of what you’ve said here are pretty serious; you claim to know the hearts of “some” men. Which men? This is very judgmental, and I for one won’t judge the hearts of men who keep their vows, because I don’t claim to know what’s in their hearts. For my part at least, I am NOT more proud of being strong than loving my God. I keep my vows because I love my wife, and even more so, because I love my God. Pride is something all men struggle with, but I do my best, with the help of God’s grace, to come to an even greater conversion so that I may put Him first in all things, loving Him with all my heart.

Generally, I’d agree with you regarding the English language. But not here. I’m still not convinced by your reasoning of an “indirect” adultery, as the word “adultery” in the English language is very direct and clear: “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” So no, a woman whose been abandoned by her lawful husband, yet voluntarily has sex with another man hasn’t just “technically” committed adultery… she just simply has, without qualification.

What is “the other” then? The “indirect” adultery you speak of? How do you define it, and how do you prove Jesus did not consider “the other” to be a sin?

I believe your application of this verse to the abandoned and civilly remarried wife we’re talking about is off. Jesus is talking about a woman who has been left by her husband; He mentions nothing about this woman remarrying elsewhere, so it’s safe to reason He’s talking about a woman who has not remarried. You’ve quoted the NIV here; it’s virtually the only Bible translation that translates this verse as “makes her the victim of adultery”. None of the Catholic Bible translations do so. As Fr. Paul Mankowski, S.J. notes:
Now that we have the right translation, what does this mean? “How does a man by divorcing his wife make her an adulteress?” Fr. Mankowski explains in his book HERE, in the paragraph immediately after the 22nd footnote:

Given this analysis, I don’t see how Matt 5:32 can be used to say that an abandoned wife, who civilly remarried, is somehow allowed to receive Communion while actively committing adultery without the resolve or intention to stop.

Well we obviously have different understandings of moral acts as opposed to physical acts.

Just as not all killing offends Thou shall not kill…I am willing to ponder the possibility in the light of AL that not all adultery offends Thou shall not commit adultery.

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife…makes her the victim of adultery…”

You may like to research a few more respected commentaries to see if your historical suppositions about the liklihood of her remaining single are well grounded. I believe there are other views.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In section 102, St. John Paul quotes a section from the Council of Trent that had been posted in this subforum recently, and was dismissed for being out of context in regards to the divorced and remarried receiving Communion. St. John Paul uses it in context perfectly here. It might be really hard to keep the commandment to not fornicate and commit adultery with a second, civil spouse; it might even be perceived as too much a burden to live as brother and sister as I’ve seen some say here… but nothing is impossible with God. So long as we cooperate with His grace, we will persevere. I have the utmost faith in that. St. Andrew of Crete is right on, “enlivened by grace… what could be burdensome… is easy to bear”.

I disagree. If I break my vows at any time by having sex with someone who is not my spouse, I have committed adultery, fornication. The day I was married to my wife, I vowed to “be faithful to her… all the days of my life.” I did not vow to “be faithful to her… all the days of my life, unless she cheats on me, doesn’t regret it, and leaves me.” Indeed, Pope Francis reminds us in AL that “It needs to be stressed that these words cannot be reduced to the present; they involve a totality that includes the future: ‘until death do us part’… Indeed, let us consider the damage caused, in our culture of global communication, by the escalation of unkept promises…” (AL 214)

Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. If my wife breaks her vows, I do not have the right to break mine. If she breaks her vows in the future, that’s her problem. His Holiness remarks that the exchange of consent “includes the future”. I won’t dismiss my vows if this occurs. As Richa said above, in the case of the abandoned wife we’re discussing, “who is to say that this husband possibly through the prayers of the wife may not have a change of heart sometime in the future and then want to be reconciled back to his wife?” If she commits adultery too, thereby breaking her vows, is she really in a position to pray for the marriage’s reconciliation? And if a reconciliation is out of the question, again, there is no right on the part of the wife to break the vows of a presumed valid marriage.

I think it is fairly clear that you breaking your vows is not comparable to either what Jesus said of the abandoned woman or the sort of related cases Pope Francis had in mind.

 

[jeannetherese]

**You misunderstand my observations. If a woman is forced to marry another to survive **then she is also forced/obligated to pay the marital debt as an integral part of that victim “choice”.
.

Perhaps this is the source of some of the confusion mentioned on the A.L. threads. In such a situation, the marriage itself seems to be a prostitutional relationship. Should we encourage a woman to continue in what seems to be a prostitutional relationship for "the sake of the children/economc advancement?

Should the woman experience conversion, wouldn’t a conversion lead to a rejection of a prostitutional relationship and a desire for a sacramental marriage?
If so, then convalidation would seem to be the next step.

If the man refuses or convalidation is not possible, is it appropriate to encourage the continuation of what seems to be a prostitutional relationship?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps this is the source of some of the confusion mentioned on the A.L. threads. In such a situation, the marriage itself seems to be a prostitutional relationship. Should we encourage a woman to continue in what seems to be a prostitutional relationship for "the sake of the children/economc advancement?

Should the woman experience conversion, wouldn’t a conversion lead to a rejection of a prostitutional relationship and a desire for a sacramental marriage?
If so, then convalidation would seem to be the next step.

If the man refuses or convalidation is not possible, is it appropriate to encourage the continuation of what seems to be a prostitutional relationship?

Interesting questions.
Where there is an imbalance of power perhaps there is something prostitutional in any relationship sacramental or not. Perhaps the thing is to so completely give of ourselves to the other that prostitutional motives are no longer required. Hence the teaching…first marriages are theoretically more conducive to that life endeavour, that work in progress than a second.

Then again the abandoned woman did not fail in this regard…her partner did and forced her back into survival mode.

Not sure what you mean by conversion. If the Church says she, whatever the past, is now in the right place then she has no need to seek a sacramental marriage nor to separate even should she see the error of her past ways.

You are perhaps questioning that judgement. But in the end if this is the judgement of the woman, and the Church regretfully agrees, where is the need to seek convalidation?
Sacramental marriages are somewhat overrated (I am somewhat biased being married to a Buddhist). The issue is still I think about Communion and abstention.

One can trade out of the prostitution motives by once again attempting to give oneself to one’s new partner, and hopefully they in turn. Often enough these 2nd marriages can be more loving than the first which sometimes were mistakes from the word go anyways. Hence the abandonment.

The problem then is that the current rules set up a conflict between giving oneseself to one’s husband as if truly married and Communion. You cannot have both.
If the husband can lovingly accept abstention that is a beautiful thing, but not always possible.
It’s a very difficult situation if abstention endangers the relationship.
Pope Francis’s approach is a light in the darkness for these cases I think.

 

[Thomas_White]

Interesting questions.
Where there is an imbalance of power perhaps there is something prostitutional in any relationship sacramental or not. Perhaps the thing is to so completely give of ourselves to the other that prostitutional motives are no longer required. Hence the teaching…first marriages are theoretically more conducive to that life endeavour, that work in progress than a second.

Then again the abandoned woman did not fail in this regard…her partner did and forced her back into survival mode.

Not sure what you mean by conversion. If the Church says she, whatever the past, is now in the right place then she has no need to seek a sacramental marriage nor to separate even should she see the error of her past ways.

You are perhaps questioning that judgement. But in the end if this is the judgement of the woman, and the Church regretfully agrees, where is the need to seek convalidation?
Sacramental marriages are somewhat overrated (I am somewhat biased being married to a Buddhist). The issue is still I think about Communion and abstention.

One can trade out of the prostitution motives by once again attempting to give oneself to one’s new partner, and hopefully they in turn. Often enough these 2nd marriages can be more loving than the first which sometimes were mistakes from the word go anyways. Hence the abandonment.

The problem then is that the current rules set up a conflict between giving oneseself to one’s husband as if truly married and Communion. You cannot have both.
If the husband can lovingly accept abstention that is a beautiful thing, but not always possible.
It’s a very difficult situation if abstention endangers the relationship.
Pope Francis’s approach is a light in the darkness for these cases I think.

This raises complex psychological issues, and of this I am least as qualified to speak of as would be many members of the clergy. (I say this with respect to certain comments on the thread questioning the competence of those not among the clergy to address those issues of AL under discussion.) What is concerning here, as an example, are issues of the possible sociopathy/psychopathy of one marriage partner and the hyper-empathy (nearly saint-like behavior) of the other. This would truly be an exploitative relationship (with nothing whatever to do with prostitution), and, in the instance of a high-functioning and typically charismatic psychopath, often very difficult to identify. It is by no means an infrequent relationship in our present society. What is worse is that following a divorce there is a very high probability that the partners of such a marriage will each end up in a relationship similar to their previous one–think of the “battered woman” syndrome as an instance.

It is understood that while Sacramental marriages are a concern of Catholics, Buddhists would have a quite different perspective of dogma and doctrine. So, one ought not impose a value judgment about this.

As said above, this is complex. Would it not be better to focus on the core issue: "Should a person in the state of mortal sin (by reason of adultery) be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

 

[Brendan]

You misunderstand my observations. If a woman is forced to marry another to survive then she is also forced/obligated to pay the marital debt as an integral part of that victim “choice”.
If it is accepted by the Church that sometimes the remarried should continue to cohabit for the sake of the children then it is somewhat inconsistent to not accept the wife willingly pay the debt to her sincere husband…not all husbands can suddenly accept a change of heart by his wife 5 years into their happy marriage…

There is no debt, as there is no valid marriage. Ergo nothing needs to be repaid.

And if*one partner does not accept the change of heart,*is that a loving relationship? If it not a loving relationship, what grounds does the Church have for encouraging it’s continuation?

In the situation that you describe, one partner isforcing someone into economic prostitution against their will. Should not the Church be doing everything possible to end that that relationship, anddirect the partner that is seeking to live a holy life to other resources?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As said above, this is complex. Would it not be better to focus on the core issue: "Should a person in the state of mortal sin (by reason of adultery) be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

Thomas I am not sure you know what this old fashioned terminology means. You declined to respond to my previous questions so surely you cannot expect me to converse with you re the above?
I repeat, until you correctly understand what “state of mortal sin” means you risk materially insulting many irregulars without cause and you will not be satisfied with any answer to your highly ambiguous formulation of the issue.
Which seems to be the case because people have offered answers to this question on other threads but you go on repeating the question as if you did not hear those responses. How many times have you asked now, five?
Are you really interested in an answer…or is this just a rhetorical strategy on your part that is so clear the conversation should end with such overwhelming " clarity"? What actually is it you are doing?
So if, like the Cardinals, your question really is a question…then please define your terms sir.

The traditional Catholic meaning of “to be in a state of mortal sin” is to be without sanctifying grace. See the Baltimore Catechism which provides a very hard to find definition…modern Catechisms do not, and in fact I believe the expression is used only once in the whole of the current 1992 Catechism.

Hopefully most of us here agree with Pope Francis that many irregulars are actually are in a state of sanctification. Do you not even agree with this?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is no debt, as there is no valid marriage. Ergo nothing needs to be repaid.

A somewhat casuistic and circular logic methinks Brendon. May as well just say there is no pastoral problem to be solved and the Synod and AL was just a big waste of time.

Should we just say to all irregulars not validly married, separate and return to you original partner or live alone and bring up the kids with no job or father…even though your second marriage was in a far better place for them and even the Church thought it best to cohabit for this reason.

I believe that if an abandoned wife does marry a man who is sincere and this is his first marriage and they have children together and he is not a Catholic…then it is inconsistent for his wife to agree to cohabitation but unilaterally refuse sex if he is unable to accept permanent abstention in his sincere marriage.

Under current Church discipline the Catholic woman is put in an extremely difficult position.
The Church allows her to cohabit but if she allows her husband his expected rights from what he regards as a true marriage by this cohabitation…she may not approach Communion…and is made to look like a serious sinner and pariah for doing so. But if the Church accepts she is victim enough that cohabitation is acceptable then clearly the woman is likely also going to be a victim re relations as well. So I believe the Church would disagree with you that she must always leave the situation if abstention would destabilize the marriage…even before Francis.

Your answer to this difficulty is simply that she isn’t his wife so he has no right to sex?
Thomas’s answer seems to be she is sinning mortally by the sex but not by the cohabitation?

There are serious pastoral and theological difficulties with both responses …just as Pope Francis’s new pastoral directives recognise and attempts to resolve thank goodness.

And if*one partner does not accept the change of heart,*is that a loving relationship? If it not a loving relationship, what grounds does the Church have for encouraging it’s continuation?

If a man sincerely marries it would be heroic virtue to later find and accept what he thought he signed up for was being withdrawn without his consent. To be unable to abstain may signify lack of heroic virtue but that does not equate to having no virtue and being unloving. Most of us fail in heroic virtue even in valid marriages.

In the situation that you describe, one partner isforcing someone into economic prostitution against their will. Should not the Church be doing everything possible to end that that relationship, anddirect the partner that is seeking to live a holy life to other resources?

By partner forcing I presume you mean the first husband who abandoned the wife?
Yes the Church is doing something. Pope Francis is suggesting that some such cases are best resolved by allowing the cohabitation and even sexual activity if abstention would destabilize the marriage. We now live in a battle field not Smallville as Pope Francis I think rightly observes.

Just as the Church does not seem to have the resources to collectively organise alternative work and drug rehab for slum prostitutes nor do States around the world manage this well either…if they did perhaps the slums and lack of resources that cause such social problems wouldn’t exist in the first place.

Similarly, if we lived in a more equal world where women with children could easily live alone when abandoned then the “directives” you seek from the Magisterium to “other resources” would be more meaningful. Alas, most of the world does not live under a well functioning welfare state. We must be careful as a Church that Lk 11:46 does not prove true in us…it surely isn’t for Pope Francis.

 

[Brendan]

A somewhat casuistic and circular logic methinks Brendon.

No, it is simply a truthful statement. There is no debt where there is no valid

Should we just say to all irregulars not validly married,

That is what the Tribunals are for, to examine the validity of the marriage. If*a prior bond exists, then there is no marriage, and it would be untruthful to speak of the relationship in those term. The Church should also seek truth, and never engage is untruth

separate and return to you original partner or live alone and bring up the kids with no job or father…even though your second marriage was in a far better place for them and even the Church thought it best to cohabit for this reason.

Is it a ‘far better place’ when their parent is being forced to engage in sex when they do not consent to it. Where their parent is held in economic prostitution?

I believe that if an abandoned wife does marry a man who is sincere and this is his first marriage and they have children together and he is not a Catholic…then it is inconsistent for his wife to agree to cohabitation but unilaterally refuse sex if he is unable to accept permanent abstention in his sincere marriage

.

You are using that term ‘marriage’ again. Are they in a marriage?

Under current Church discipline the Catholic woman is put in an extremely difficult position.

But not an impossible one. That is clear from Church teaching. That God provides the Grace to follow His commands in every situation.

The Church allows her to cohabit but if she allows her husband his expected rights from what he regards as a true marriage by this cohabitation…she may not approach Communion

What ‘rights’ are those, and where did the rights come from?

…and is made to look like a serious sinner and pariah for doing so.

If they are consenting to the sex, that is a serious sin, if they are not, that is rape, in either case, the Church DOES indicate that the person should leave the relationship

Your answer to this difficulty is simply that she isn’t his wife so he has no right to sex?

Yes, if you disagree with me on that point, where does this right to sex come from? Where does one get a right to have sex with another man’s wife?

Thomas’s answer seems to be she is sinning mortally by the sex but not by the cohabitation?

That would be correct. The couple are called to change their relationship to that of being a brother and a sister. Brothers and Sisters may live in the same house without sin.

There are serious pastoral and theological difficulties with both responses

What are the theological difficulties, and should pastors shy away from situtations because they are difficult?

And if one partner does not accept the change of heart,is that a loving relationship? If it not a loving relationship, what grounds does the Church have for encouraging it’s continuation?

By partner forcing I presume you mean the first husband who abandoned the wife?

No, that person would be a ‘husband’, the one calling for adulterous sex is the partner.

Yes the Church is doing something. Pope Francis is suggesting that some such cases are best resolved by allowing the cohabitation and even sexual activity if abstention would destabilize the marriage.

Again, what marriage are you speaking of. The only one that we could truthfully speak of would be the prior bond. Everthing else would be a civil illusion with no validity.

Just as the Church does not seem to have the resources…

Does Matthew 6:25-27 not apply to everyone

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life

The Church DOES have sufficient resources, God provides in every case. In might not be in the way a person expects, but it does happen. We have Christ’s own words to guarantee that.

We must be careful as a Church that Lk 11:46 does not prove true in us…it surely isn’t for Pope Francis.

Christ Himself reiterated the Moral Law to the rich young man, so clearly Christ does not consider those prohibitions to be barred by Luke 11

“Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.* You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

The Church does not wrong in asking that person to follow the same Commandments that Christ reiterated to the rich young man. And like that, we ask them to give up on the things that prevent them from deepening their relationship to Christ.For the young man, it was material goods. Is that not what you are saying that the adulterous person should retain as well? Holding on to material goods instead of obeying the commands of God?

 

[Richca]

“To be married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband–and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

During the time of Jesus on the earth, a woman could not under the Law divorce her husband, though she could “separate” from him (i.e., leave him). However, a man could divorce his wife. What is not mentioned in the verse quoted above is the status of a divorced woman or a man whose wife separates from him. With reference to the verses concerning divorce and adultery in Matthew, Mark and Luke (re: comment #250), I do not believe this was an unintended omission but rather that the verse means precisely what it says and no more.

St Paul says that he is giving the Lord’s, not his own, instruction to the married, i.e., to both the wife and husband. And Jesus did away with divorce and unequivocally taught as the CCC says the indissolubility of the marriage bond. The passage above from St Paul then must be understood in the light of the Church’s teaching, which is the authentic interpreter of Holy Scripture and the teaching of Jesus Christ, concerning marriage. And the Church understands this passage as referring to the indissolubility of the marriage bond. It is referenced a couple of times in the footnotes of the CCC concerning the indissolubility of the marriage bond and the Catechism of the Council of Trent quotes the passage in the same vein. This has been the constant teaching of the Church since apostolic times and why the Church does not allow second marriages while a lawful spouse is still alive.

The authentic interpretation of the above passage is that for weighty reasons such as an abusive husband or an adulterous wife, the victimized wife or husband may separate but must remain single or else be reconciled because a valid marriage bond is indissoluble and cannot be dissolved by any human power. What St Paul says here concerning the wife applies equally to the husband, this is understood and which is understood by the Church’s authentic teaching. For example, a little later on St Paul says
“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (verses 39-40). Are we to understand that what is said concerning the wife here does not equally apply to the husband? Absolutely not. Marriage is a bond between two people, one man and one woman as God instituted it from the beginning in the creation of Adam and Eve.

Also, you say “During the time of Jesus on the earth, a woman could not under the Law divorce her husband.” Where in the above passage from St Paul is the word ‘Law’ mentioned? And what Law are you talking about? I’m assuming the Mosaic Law. St Paul is writing to the Church at Corinth which had both jew and gentile converts. The gentile converts were not under the Mosaic Law but the natural law implanted in all people by God. The gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law in which a woman under this law it seems could not divorce her husband. In the Greco-Roman world in which the gentiles of Corinth lived, divorce was common and it could be initiated by either the man or woman from what I have read. This was the gentiles culture and Paul is writing not only to jewish converts but to gentile converts too. Accordingly, I don’t think the Mosaic Law which allowed a man to divorce his wife and not vice-versa has anything to do with this passage of scripture under discussion at least for the gentile converts. The passage has to do with the Lord’s teaching concerning marriage, divorce, and the indissolubility of the marriage bond and as authentically taught us by the magisterium of the Church.