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

[gilliam]

There is also an equal, if not greater danger, of becoming too, um, lax.

That does seem to be one argument given on this and other threads. From reading responses on the Internet from bishops, it seems that those who are in pastoral work tend to favor a less legalistic approach. It is easy, especially for those who don’t have to deal with individual issues on a daily basis; those, say, in academia to see these issues as black and white and even to overemphasis their importance. Again, our focus should be on saving souls, not imposing restrictions. Being facilitators, not gatekeepers.

At least that is the message I received loud and clear from the magistarium via the two synods on these topics.

I find it surprising (or maybe not so much) on how many posts have been devoted to this subject vs other subjects that have much more of an influence on the daily life of individual Catholics. Have we all turned into canon lawyers now? Christ and St. Paul wanted us to welcome people into the Church. We need to remember that. If Christ wanted us to be Pharisees He would have taught that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That does seem to be one argument given on this and other threads. From reading responses on the Internet from bishops, it seems that those who are in pastoral work tend to favor a less legalistic approach. It is easy, especially for those who don’t have to deal with individual issues on a daily basis; those, say, in academia to see these issues as black and white and even to overemphasis their importance. Again, our focus should be on saving souls, not imposing restrictions. Being facilitators, not gatekeepers.

I find it surprising (or maybe not so much) on how many posts have been devoted to this subject vs other subjects that have much more of an influence on the daily life of individual Catholics. Have we all turned into canon lawyers now?

I don’t think we have, really. And, with respect, those of us who are not pastors do have families, and our families quite often are in irregular situations, and we, mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters, and brothers, are I think as eager to see our family members’ souls saved as our pastors are.

So maybe we are dealing with these issues pretty often, and maybe we see the confusion and the difficulties first hand.

So I’m 60, I’m a woman, a mother/grandmother, a daughter (my mother is 87, praise God), and I’ve dealt with these issues in her, in me, in my children. . .And Lord knows it would be so, so easy, to be ‘just grandma’, to look for the loopholes, to give the children etc. what they want, to be the voice that breathes only, "oh but your situation is unique, you must have all given to you, even if it contradicts the so called ‘letter of the law’, for only then will you be assured of God’s love, and come to faith’. (NOT that I am saying that is the position of AL, but I am saying that for some it could be perceived as such.)

And while it appears that a rigid and ‘legalistic approach’ (such as has been the case for lo these 2000 years) might be harmful, is it truly so?

You know, back in the day when the early Christians were approached, “Give tribute to the emperor or die”. . . don’t you suppose it would have been easy for the Church to say, “Well, gee. If the person doesn’t give the tribute, they’re going to leave their wives and families destitute. And they’ll die, and miss out on all the potential good they could be doing here. And can’t they just ‘mentally reserve’ and give a token offering? It would make Christianity so much more appealing. You can’t get many converts if they think they could be killed just for being Christians, right? Look at the families suffering! And you know that God would totally, totally forgive the people, right? Of course I’m right! They aren’t even guilty of mortal sin because they are doing it under duress, so there are no worries. . .”

But that ‘legalistic reasoning’ whereby denial of Christ would be held to have occurred with a ‘tribute’ to the emperor, a mortal sin even if the person involved felt that he ‘had to’ deny Christ lest he be killed and his family suffer. . .was what the Church taught. Very unmerciful, except that, to paraphrase the Grinch. . .perhaps Christianity itself means a little bit more. . .

I think perhaps that we have kind of lost sight of what Christianity should be leading us to. The early Christians thought less of what was happening in this life, and more of what he should be striving for --the next life. Today it seems to me that Christians are striving to have the best possible life here on earth, with the next life as kind of a ‘reward package’ for doing good on earth.

Again, it’s a balance. Of course we need to strive to do our best for our fellow man, but if we’re only doing it to make our fellow man feel good about himself, even if we follow that with, “so that they will choose God”, then we really have done a lot to take God out of the equation.

And that is what I personally feel about the ambiguity that has led some (not all, but some) to a position that contradicts Church teaching.

 

[billy15]

I don’t think we have, really. And, with respect, those of us who are not pastors do have families, and our families quite often are in irregular situations, and we, mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters, and brothers, are I think as eager to see our family members’ souls saved as our pastors are.

So maybe we are dealing with these issues pretty often, and maybe we see the confusion and the difficulties first hand.

These are some good thoughts, and I myself am on a different side of the spectrum; late 20’s, married, father of young children. Yet I can see why this topic is important because it’s already affected several people in my life as well.

We are exhorted by the saints and by our leaders today to remain in the Truth that is Christ. I don’t have to be a “canon lawyer” to do that, and to say that all the discussion of this important topic makes some follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees is ridiculous. I’d like to ask, what is legalism, as put forth by Gilliam and others in this thread and others? We should define terms because I, as I am sure others like Tantum ergo, are against a legalism defined as something that is comparable to that of the Pharisees that Jesus and St. Paul condemns. So that begs the question: does the Dubia fall under this category of legalism. Is the perennial teaching of the Church, that negative commandments, or prohibitions (you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit murder), are universally binding in each and every circumstance? Is this statement to be included in that unfortunate category of Pharisaical legalism:

[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist…

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

These are very specific qualifications for such divorced and remarried people. If we (and our pastors, more importantly) follow these teachings of the Church given to us by St. John Paul, are we then being “too legalistic” as the Pharisees are? Or are these qualifications more an answer to what Jesus exhorted us to do in our lives: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”? (Matt 5: 48)

Again, our focus should be on saving souls, not imposing restrictions. Being facilitators, not gatekeepers…

Christ and St. Paul wanted us to welcome people into the Church. We need to remember that.

Indeed, we do need to remember this, which is why I try to always invite my friends and other people in my life who are living in such “irregular” situations or are cohabiting to come back to the Church, or to come to Mass with me when we are together. And those who find themselves in these situations of being divorced and civilly remarried do not need to stop taking part in the life of the Church at all. Many of us here do remember to be welcoming like this. However, St. Paul is clear when he tells us how important it is to be in a state of grace when receiving the Eucharist:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Cor. 11: 27-32)

Is not St. Paul’s focus on saving souls here? He doesn’t want to see anyone condemned, so out of pastoral love for his flock and other brothers and sisters in Christ, he tells them how serious it is to receive Holy Communion unworthily. Can he be labeled a gatekeeper, since he excludes some from receiving the Eucharist?

I’m not a canon lawyer, but St. Paul is pretty clear that there are actions that restrict one from receiving the Eucharist… and I get that from simply reading Scripture and seeing how that applies to those who are divorced and civilly remarried. The Church has specified what those restrictions are. Is that being legalistic? I think not; instead the Church in her wisdom is being facilitating in making sure her children do not fall into error and are thus judged by our Lord accordingly.

Indeed, the focus is on saving souls. This is why so many people are talking about this subject. We, as do the Cardinals who wrote the dubia, have “an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.”

 

[gilliam]

The question was asked “what is legalism?”

Quoting St. Paul, the Holy Father talked about ‘legalism’ on Oct 6th.

The Pope noted that one can wrongly seek justification in doctrine and law, and not through Jesus “who makes sense of the Law.” There is the temptation to reduce the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ to the Law.

Paul rebuked the Galatians because “they ignored the Holy Spirit, and they did not know to go forward,” the pontiff explained.

They were “closed, closed in precepts: ‘we have to do this, we have to do that’,” he said. “At times, it can happen that we fall into this temptation.”

“(T)his attachment to the Law ignores the Holy Spirit. It does not grant that the redemption of Christ goes forward with the Holy Spirit, it ignores that. There is only the Law,” he warned.

“It is true that there are the Commandments and we have to follow the Commandments – but always through the grace of this great gift that the Father has given us, His Son, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The Pope noted the spiritual danger of “those who preach with ideologies” and speak in a mindset that is “absolutely just.”

“They bewitch: it’s all clear,” he said. “But look, the revelation is not clear, eh? The revelation of God is discovered more and more each day, it is always on a journey.”

There is a different clarity to God’s revelation, he said.

“Is it clear? Yes! It is crystal clear! It is Him, but we have to discover it along the way. And those who believe they have the whole truth in their hands are not (just) ignorant.”

Paul calls the Galatians “stupid” because they have allowed themselves to be “bewitched,” the Pope explained.

Another attitude saddens the Holy Spirit when “we do not allow Him to inspire us, to lead us forward in the Christian life.” Christians should allow “the liberty of the Spirit,” not the “theology of the law,” to tell them what to do. The wrong attitude brings Christians to lukewarmness and “Christian mediocrity” because the Holy Spirit “cannot do great works in us.”

Pope Francis stressed the need “to open ourselves to the Holy Spirit, and let the Spirit carry us forward.”

“That’s what the Apostles did, (with) the courage of the day of Pentecost. They lost their fear and opened themselves to the Holy Spirit,” he said. This is the way to understand and welcome the words of Jesus.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/for-pope-francis-legalism-makes-christians-stupid-59175/

More here

Pope Francis was reflecting on the Reading from the Acts of the Apostles in which the Doctors of the Law accuse Stephen of speaking “blasphemous words against Moses and God” because they “could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.”
They even instigated false witnesses to uphold their claims, he said.

“Their hearts, closed to God’s truth, clutch only at the truth of the Law, taking it by ‘the letter’, and do not find outlets other than in lies, false witness and death” he said.
The Pope pointed out that Jesus had already reprimanded them for this attitude, because “their fathers had killed the prophets”, and they were now building monuments to those prophets.

He said that the response of the “doctors of the letter” is more cynical than hypocritical when they say that had they been in the days of their fathers, they would not have done the same.

Thus - the Pope said – they wash their hands of everything and judge themselves pure.
But, he continued: “The heart is closed to God’s Word, it is closed to truth, and it is closed to God’s messenger who brings the prophecy so that God’s people may go forward."
Pope Francis said: "It hurts when I read that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented, goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned’ and wants to give … and gives them the coins. ‘Who cares! - they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man, who did not know what to do. And he went and hanged himself. And what did they do when Judas hanged himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: 'Is he a poor man? No! These coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple… and they referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter. "

The life of a person did not matter to them, the Pope observed, they did not care about Judas’ repentance.

The Gospel, he continued, says that Judas came back repentant. But all that mattered to them “were the laws, so many words and things they had built”.

This – he said - shows the hardness of their hearts. It’s the foolishness of their hearts that could not withstand the wisdom of Stephen’s truth so they go to look for false witnesses to judge him.

Stephen - the Pope continued – ends up like all prophets, like Jesus. And this is repeated in the history of the Church:

"History tells us of many people who were judged and killed, although they were innocent: judged according to the Word of God, against the Word of God. Let’s think of witch hunts or of St. Joan of Arc, and of many others who were burnt to death, condemned because according to the judges they were not in line with the Word of God” he said.

Pope Francis pointed out that Jesus himself ended up on the cross for having trusted in God and obeyed His Word and he reminded the faithful of Jesus’ words of tenderness when he said to the disciples on the Road to Emmaus: “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke.”

He concluded saying: “Let us ask the Lord to look to the large and to the small follies of our hearts with the same tenderness, to caress us gently and to say to us: ‘Oh you foolish and slow of heart’ and begin to explain things to us.”

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/11/pope_francis_warns_against_those_who_judge_with_closed_hea/1221870

 

[kyrie03]

Not sure if I am interpreting you right, but I believe God protects the pope from teaching false doctrine. But he is not protected from ambiguity. “Flexibility” is good, when you are at the parish level, working with a couple. But the pope is not working with a couple now. Ambiguity is harmful when it leads different dioceses in the same culture to take contradictory positions. If innocent parties from the original marriage are respected wildly different in San Diego than in Philadelphia, that’s not being pastoral.

Even though the current topic is not directly about annulments, that may be how it is regarded in the community, that this is now Catholic sanctioned divorce (but only in some places). One can argue the pope could not have foreseen the contradictions and divisions caused. OK, but now having seen it, he may choose to respond either to the Dubia or in some other way.

Pope is protected from teaching false doctrine when he speaks “ex cathedral” or from the chair - teaches on matters of faith or morals to whole Church and intends to speak authoritatively as Pontiff. And, of course, when he teaches as the Church has always taught, he is teaching infallible truths. The “voice of Peter” is neither utilized, nor protected from error, when a pope speaks about personal belief, opinion, or desire.

Furthermore, the primary purpose of the papacy is to “confirm his brethren in the truth” - uphold and explain all truths revealed by Christ and handed down in the Deposit of Faith. Bishops (including cardinals) are commissioned by Christ to assist the Pope in this duty of teaching all of the truths necessary for salvation. Truth cannot develop to the point where it changes from prior truth- He Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life is the same yesterday, today and forever. It is WE who must flex to conform to His Truth.

Purpose of Dubia is to clarify confusion about doctrine. Is Communion for D/R without annulment (a matter concerning both faith and morals) now allowed in certain unspecified situations? If so, how can it be reconciled with past binding papal teaching forbidding the practice? Or is Pope Francis expressing a personal opinion and not intending to bind all of the faithful?

 

[chevalier]

I’m not really sure what a “formal correction” would amount to considering this:

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

He’s also saying Amoris Laetitia, an Apostolic Exhortation, is not part of the Magisterium…which is fascinating because he uses Familiaris Consortio as evidence for his position, which is also an Apostolic Exhortation.

Magisterial documents can’t go back and forth without open change. If a subsequent pope wants to reverse a previous pope, which is possible because the contents of exhortations are not irreversible dogmatic definitions, it should be done openly and with no doubts left. Silence is questionable. Using backdoors is questionable. There should be utmost transparency and full intellectual honesty. Pastors do owe good faith to their flocks.

As for can. 1404, that’s jurisdiction. Nobody has the ecclesiastic jurisdiction to put a pope in the docket, but that doesn’t mean it’s illicit to contradict what a pope says and give it some kind of solemn form. It could be done without usurping jurisdiction above the Pope’s own, just like in the John XXII example.

(I say this while thinking the criticism is exaggerated — Pope Francis does seem hard to reconcile with Pope John Paul II on the obligation to live like brother and sister but does not deny the requirement of absence of subjective mortal sin for the reception of the Eucharist (as opposed to requiring that even subjective venial sins involving objective grave matter be absent), nor does he seem to openly question the existence of absolute norms in AL, though his various statements do seem to need explanation and an inopportune at first glance. And second too, sometimes.)

 

[gilliam]

Why does Pope Francis want us to watch the movie “Babette’s Feast”?

 

[billy15]

Thank you for the articles. I suppose my question now, is this:

Are the four cardinals in their writing of the dubia, as well as like minded prelates and clergyman, becoming too legalistic by observing that negative commandments (or prohibitions) are universally binding in each and every circumstance? Is there really a disconnect between following the Law of the Church and being pastoral, as both are not to be opposed to each other in a way that the legalism of the Pharisees turned into? Are the questions the dubia raise to be seen as legalism at its worst (i.e., like the Pharisees), therefore contradicting the action of pastoring to souls in which they are led to salvation?

 

[Ender]

The question was asked “what is legalism?”

Quoting St. Paul, the Holy Father talked about ‘legalism’ on Oct 6th.The Pope noted that one can wrongly seek justification in doctrine and law, and not through Jesus “who makes sense of the Law.”…
More here“Their hearts, closed to God’s truth, clutch only at the truth of the Law, taking it by ‘the letter’, and do not find outlets other than in lies, false witness and death” he said.

This explains that legalism may exist, but it says nothing about whether the questions raised about AL are examples of it, or whether the concerns about the appearance of contradictions between what it implies and what has been taught before are valid. To dismiss the questions raised by Cardinal Burke and others as legalisms is an evasion. If his position is invalid there should be valid arguments to counter it. Calling it a name and refusing to address it is a long way from refuting it.

Ender

 

[EIF5A]

I seriously doubt it if there is only “an intention to do so”.

Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?

 

[Richca]

Thank you for the articles. I suppose my question now, is this:

Are the four cardinals in their writing of the dubia, as well as like minded prelates and clergyman, becoming too legalistic by observing that negative commandments (or prohibitions) are universally binding in each and every circumstance? Is there really a disconnect between following the Law of the Church and being pastoral, as both are not to be opposed to each other in a way that the legalism of the Pharisees turned into? Are the questions the dubia raise to be seen as legalism at its worst (i.e., like the Pharisees), therefore contradicting the action of pastoring to souls in which they are led to salvation?

No to all three questions. Our salvation requires that we keep the eternal law and commandments of God. The rich man asked Jesus “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” Jesus replied, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments…You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 19: 16-19).

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5: 17-19).

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5: 2-3).

The very measure of what are good or evil human actions is the Divine and Eternal Law of God. The CCC#1849 defines sin which is a bad or evil human action as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” The corollary of this is that a good human action is one which is in accord with the eternal law. The eternal law is God’s ‘reason’ or intellect of which human beings participate with their created reason or intellect and the natural law God implanted in every person’s mind and heart.

The Psalms are filled with texts and meditations on the beauty and perfection of God’s law.

" In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with the example of Jesus, the tradition of the Church has acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue" (CCC#2064).

The Obligation of the Decalogue
Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart. (CCC#2072).

The Decalogue is a path of life (CCC#2057):
“See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you this day, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply… But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you this day, that you shall perish…I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30: 15-19).

The Ten Commandments or Decalogue is the supernatural revelation of the natural law God implanted in the heart of man, in human nature (cf. CCC#2070-2071; Deut. 30: 11-14; Romans 2: 14-15). We cannot do away with the law of God without doing away with man, its a part of human nature and in this sense the Decalogue is called the natural law implanted by God in the mind and heart of every human being.

'In the first book, O The-oph’ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1). Jesus, our model and example, followed the commandments of God himself to perfection before he taught them and their perfect fulfillment to others.

“A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel* on his cloak” (Matt. 9:20)
“People brought to him all those who were sick and begged him that they might touch only the tassel on his cloak, and as many as touched it were healed” (Matt. 14: 35-36). The Mosaic law prescribed that tassels be worn on the corners of one’s garment as a reminder to keep the commandments (see Nm 15:37–39; Dt 22:12). Our Blessed Lady is probably the one who made Jesus’ garment and sewed the tassels on it.

 

[Demetra2]

They are not being disobedient. But I don’t know that they are really confused about AL. I think that they think AL is wrong and they are expressing their discontent with (and perhaps dissent from) that document. They can do that, and the Pope is perfectly well equipped to deal with it.

Meanwhile the vast majority of Catholics, laity and clergy alike, are perfectly happy with the Pope and his teachings.

I am not in the majority it seems. I’m confused by the vague, off the cuff comments that the Pope makes to an elderly atheist journalist while on an airplane.

 

[OraLabora]

Why does Pope Francis want us to watch the movie “Babette’s Feast”?

An excellent and very powerful movie. I can well understand why it’s his favourite.

In the context of this discussion, I thought this reflection was most appropriate:

ibenedictines.org/2016/12/26/st-stephens-day-and-our-need-of-faith-2016/

 

[commenter]

Thank you for the articles. I suppose my question now, is this:

Are the four cardinals in their writing of the dubia, as well as like minded prelates and clergyman, becoming too legalistic by observing that negative commandments (or prohibitions) are universally binding in each and every circumstance? Is there really a disconnect between following the Law of the Church and being pastoral, as both are not to be opposed to each other in a way that the legalism of the Pharisees turned into? Are the questions the dubia raise to be seen as legalism at its worst (i.e., like the Pharisees), therefore contradicting the action of pastoring to souls in which they are led to salvation?

It is wrong to state that every instance of a particular action is a mortal sin, but it is not legalism to point out that certain things are inherently (objectively) wrong in every instance.

The “legalism” of the pharisees was not that they were hardliners, conservatives, or absolutists. Their legalism was that they clouded every subject. They were relativists, who over complicated every situation of every day life, so people could never be sure what was right or wrong. The answer to every question was “well, it all depends”; in other words, every question needed a detailed, nuanced answer, that made you dependent on the pharisee.

It seems to me certain trends are moving us closer to phariseeism, not away from it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?

As a practical matter, this would require the mutual agreement of the married couple if they were to remain living together and would on some level effectively end the marriage. I do not see this as either a realistic solution or necessarily to the benefit of any children.

There are considerations of age and illness where this might not present so much of a burden and perhaps none at all.

But yes, I believe it would be too large of a burden and too great of an expectation, and with unintended consequences, in most instances. The difficulty for those in an irregular marriage is that they have of their own free will put themselves in a precarious position relative to the sacraments. I also strongly believe a person is responsible for their own actions. In that way, it seems to me unfair to expect the Church to solve this problem for them.

 

[Tomdstone]

Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?

Is there some reason why a Catholic couple cannot marry?

 

[jeannetherese]

As a practical matter, this would require the mutual agreement of the married couple if they were to remain living together and would on some level effectively end the marriage…

Why should a lack of sexual intercourse effectively end a marriage? There are cases inwhich a couple enters into marriage and, for varying reasons, may later be unable to engage in intercourse.
Would we argue that the marriage becomes effectively ended at this point?

 

[Stat_Crux]

Thank you for the articles. I suppose my question now, is this:

Are the four cardinals in their writing of the dubia, as well as like minded prelates and clergyman, becoming too legalistic by observing that negative commandments (or prohibitions) are universally binding in each and every circumstance? Is there really a disconnect between following the Law of the Church and being pastoral, as both are not to be opposed to each other in a way that the legalism of the Pharisees turned into? Are the questions the dubia raise to be seen as legalism at its worst (i.e., like the Pharisees), therefore contradicting the action of pastoring to souls in which they are led to salvation?

“Becoming” is the key word in your question. They cannot be starting to be legalistic if they continue to uphold and teach the constant teaching before AL (e.g. they haven’t “begun” anything, they just haven’t changed). Also, there must logically be no disconnect between God’s commandments and our pastoral good, otherwise we would be stating that the commandments of God are not “pastoral”, which would of course be an error. If we believe that the Church represents the mechanism God established to communicate his teachings faithfully, it must therefore also by definition imply that the historic teaching of refusing Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried (on the grounds that they live in a state of mortal sin) represents a faithful expression of the commandments of God.

The trouble with the word “Pharisee” is that it is being used as a pejorative against anyone who seeks to understand or define an idea or a principle. On that basis any of the great philosophers of the Church would be a “Pharisee” including the likes of St Thomas Aquinas.

Of course, the other issue is that we must consider that the two sides of the argument (for and against Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried) are not equivalent. One argument represents the historic teaching of the Church and is therefore our “default” starting position, the other is a new idea/interpretation. In that case, two things need to be justified in regards to any new interpretation:

• The acceptability of the more “pastoral” teaching with regards to Catholic Doctrine
• Reconciliation or explanation of how a change in the teaching, to allow something which was always expressly forbidden, is now possible

 

[Stat_Crux]

On another note, here is quite a useful document which someone else has prepared which includes quotations and source references relating to both sides of the discussion. It makes for a useful guide to understand the positions of both and should help inform the discussion:

docs.google.com/document/d/1XKimKuzgHgbE9YsJXojwhiufsDosCURraly6mMXIxDE/mobilebasic

 

[Thomas_White]

Is there some reason why a Catholic couple cannot marry?

Yes.

"Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

"For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation" --Cannons 1095 & 1096.1, 1983 code of canon law. (emphasis added)

Logically, the exception that the parties in an irregular marriage who commit to living as brother and sister may be permitted to receive communion would mean that in the eyes of the Church the irregular marriage is null.