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

[Thomas_White]

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?

No, not when inability is a factor

 

[Ender]

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 it “legalism” or is it church doctrine? Was JPII guilty of legalism when he said this?*The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all. *(Veritatis Splendor, #52)

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?

No, of course not. The disconnect is in thinking that excusing sin is being pastoral.*On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept. *(VS #56)

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?

Talk of legalism is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss the questions without having to address their content. As long as the focus is on Burke (and the other cardinals) and not on their dubia you can be sure it is because no one has devised a way to answer them.

Ender

 

[zz912]

Talk of legalism is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss the questions without having to address their content. As long as the focus is on Burke (and the other cardinals) and not on their dubia you can be sure it is because no one has devised a way to answer them.

Ender

The dubia is easily answerable. Five simple Yes/No answers is all it takes.

The problem arises when answering the questions will either uphold Church teaching, or deny Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

The dubia is easily answerable. Five simple Yes/No answers is all it takes.

The problem arises when answering the questions will either uphold Church teaching, or deny Church teaching.

I agree. If the answer is yes then the exceptions implied by AL must be rejected, but if the answer is no then it represents a change to doctrine, which we have been repeatedly told has not happened. It appears that the desired answer is yes in theory but no in practice.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I agree. If the answer is yes then the exceptions implied by AL must be rejected, but if the answer is no then it represents a change to doctrine, which we have been repeatedly told has not happened. It appears that the desired answer is yes in theory but no in practice.

Ender

If the answer is indeed yes in theory and no in practice, it would also entail a rejection of the concept of an Absolute Truth in favor of a moral relativism. And with that, a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine and teaching would at once become imperiled.

 

[billy15]

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).

commenter:

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.

“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.

Ender:

Is it “legalism” or is it church doctrine? Was JPII guilty of legalism when he said this?

The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all. (Veritatis Splendor, #52)

Talk of legalism is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss the questions without having to address their content. As long as the focus is on Burke (and the other cardinals) and not on their dubia you can be sure it is because no one has devised a way to answer them.

Ender

Thank you for the excellent answers everyone, especially from he bolded portion given by Commenter. That was exactly what I’ve been thinking, as the Pharisees were anything but rigid on divorce and remarriage, and Jesus made it absolutely clear (in an either/or fashion) that…

"[man and wife] are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. (Mat. 19: 6-11)

And I agree with Ender, talk with legalism appears to be nothing more than dismissing the questions. This is why I had asked my three questions without any of my own (name removed by moderator)ut on how I would answer them, and I was sincerely hoping that Gilliam would answer, as all he gave my previous post were just quotations in response to my first question “What is legalism?” While I’ve gotten some great, and clear answers from four other posters, Gilliam has yet to answer, and I do hope we can see at some point his honest answers to my questions. I sincerely pray that this controversy stemming from the interpretations of AL will be resolved. Perusing a little bit of that Google Doc from Start Crux was informative, but distressing. May God have mercy on us all and may schism not become a reality.

 

[billy15]

Also, I’m kind of confused by what you posted here Thomas White, and maybe I’m just misunderstanding you here. You said:
Thomas White:

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 [refraining from sexual intercourse] as either a realistic solution or necessarily to the benefit of any children…

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.

I’ve always been under the impression that anything is possible with God, especially if we pray for virtue. There have been some very hard sins for me to overcome, but I never thought of God’s commandments being too great an expectation, especially since we’re called to holiness and “to be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect.” From Chapter 11 from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent:

On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof.

But no one, how much soever justified,… ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burden light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do.

And Canon XVIII states: “If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.”

I believe this also applies to the divorced and civilly remarried. If I have misinterprted your post in anyway, I apologize. You’ve posted a lot of helpful things in recent weeks, and I feel I may just be misunderstanding the point you were trying to make, but I at least wanted to post that section from the VI session to make it clear that the commandments given by the Church regarding the reception of Communion are not impossible.

 

[jeannetherese]

Originally Posted by jeannetherese View Post
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.

No, not when inability is a factor

And if that inability is based upon developing an understanding that previous intercourse was not in conformity with the will of God and, based upon this developed understanding choosing to abstain so as to conform oneself to the will of God?
Such an inability, in this case, would be based upon a determination to resist conforming to the world, rather than a physical dis-ability.

A Josephite marriage might be an example of being married, yet abstaining from sexual relations. Would this effectively end a marriage?

 

[CWN_News]

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller-one of the four cardinals who submitted dubia to Pope Francis regarding the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia-has said that any “correction” of the Pontiff would be done privately.

More…

 

[Tomdstone]

A Josephite marriage might be an example of being married, yet abstaining from sexual relations. Would this effectively end a marriage?

I thought that Mary and Joseph were married?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I thought that Mary and Joseph were married?

Yes. According to a search on Catholic Answers, the following ‘quick question and response’ are probably the best answers for you, thus:

Some of us Catholic have been doing apologetics on an Internet forum and have been successful in explaining that Mary and Joseph did not have conjugal relations. However, I’ve got myself into trouble over the fact that today the Church would say that is not a valid marriage and Scripture does say that Mary and Joseph were married. How do we resolve this?

Answer

The first of the two premises—that the Church would say Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage—is false. This objection has been dealt with a long time ago. Thomas Aquinas considers it in the Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2). Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is not required for the consent to be valid. Therefore, according to the standard account, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by the parties to be used. There have been parallel cases down through history, and these are known as “Josephite” marriages, after St. Joseph.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes. According to a search on Catholic Answers, the following ‘quick question and response’ are probably the best answers for you, thus:

Answer

The first of the two premises—that the Church would say Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage—is false. This objection has been dealt with a long time ago. Thomas Aquinas considers it in the Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2). Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is not required for the consent to be valid. Therefore, according to the standard account, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by the parties to be used. There have been parallel cases down through history, and these are known as “Josephite” marriages, after St. Joseph.

And of course being Jewish, Mary and Joseph would have been married under Jewish marital law, not Catholic. In Jewish law the “right” to conjugal relations is the woman’s, not the man’s. His is a duty to fulfill that right but he may not force her if she does not wish to exercise that right. If she did not exercise that right, he therefore could not force her to have relations and she would have remained a virgin. Which she did remain as we all know, and we know that St. Joseph was complicit with that arrangement.

I find it a bit odd though to be talking about validity of a marriage under Catholic law when the Church was not yet revealed and the New Covenant not yet sealed, but of course under the later Catholic understanding of marriage, yes, it would still be valid, as long as both agreed to the arrangement. There are however some significant differences between the Jewish and Catholic notions of marriage.

I think what we can say is that they conformed to Jewish law, but at the same time nothing in their marriage did injury to the later Catholic concept of marriage.

 

[Thomas_White]

Originally Posted by jeannetherese View Post
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.

And if that inability is based upon developing an understanding that previous intercourse was not in conformity with the will of God and, based upon this developed understanding choosing to abstain so as to conform oneself to the will of God?
Such an inability, in this case, would be based upon a determination to resist conforming to the world, rather than a physical dis-ability.

I do not know what inability “based upon developing an understanding” might mean, nor do I know what an inability “based upon a determination to resist conforming to the world” might mean.

 

[Thomas_White]

Also, I’m kind of confused by what you posted here Thomas White, and maybe I’m just misunderstanding you here. You said:

I’ve always been under the impression that anything is possible with God, especially if we pray for virtue. There have been some very hard sins for me to overcome, but I never thought of God’s commandments being too great an expectation, especially since we’re called to holiness and “to be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect.” From Chapter 11 from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent:

And Canon XVIII states: “If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.”

I believe this also applies to the divorced and civilly remarried. If I have misinterprted your post in anyway, I apologize. You’ve posted a lot of helpful things in recent weeks, and I feel I may just be misunderstanding the point you were trying to make, but I at least wanted to post that section from the VI session to make it clear that the commandments given by the Church regarding the reception of Communion are not impossible.

I did not mean to imply that it is impossible for a couple in an irregular marriage to live as brother and sister. Of course it is possible. It perhaps would have been better to simply say I believe this is a rare occurrence for the reason under discussion, i.e., to return to the sacraments. And it would have been fair to ask if this is not the very reason why the issue is prominent in AL.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I think you have a good point.I would think that this would be the path that at least some, if not many eventually end up on in the internal forum.

 

[pnewton]

If the answer is indeed yes in theory and no in practice, it would also entail a rejection of the concept of an Absolute Truth in favor of a moral relativism. And with that, a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine and teaching would at once become imperiled.

I am wondering if the cynicism behind this possibility might be part of the reason the Pope has not answered. The idea that a simple yes or no will do is, well simplistic. There are too many that believe any no answer will change doctrine. Therefore no answer can be a one word answer.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If his [Cardinal Bourke] position is invalid there should be valid arguments to counter it.

Where does this moral imperative, this “should” come from?
It is certainly not a self-evident moral principle to me.

Why does the Pope have to answer to any particular person’s difficulties, let alone in the way they want it?

In any case I believe he has done so, though the manner and the terms of reference may still not satisfy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The dubia is easily answerable. Five simple Yes/No answers is all it takes.

The problem arises when answering the questions will either uphold Church teaching, or deny Church teaching.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
A simple yes or no answer is all it takes please…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

It may be that this question is THE elephant in the room re AL.
From my own ecclesial pastoral experience re married couples, especially a Catholic woman married to a non Catholic man, yes, this may well be an unreasonable ask for a variety of reasons.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
A simple yes or no answer is all it takes please…

This example question has already been answered by the philosopher (and practicing Catholic) Edward Feser on his blog:

edwardfeser.blogspot.fr/2016/12/denial-flows-into-tiber.html

To quote his response to your example:

1. “To ask the pope for a Yes or No answer misses the point.”

Some defenders of Amoris seem to think that the problem with critics of the document is that they are demanding Yes or No answers, when the pope’s whole point is that Yes or No answers are not possible in this case. The idea seems to be that those asking the pope for clarification of Amoris are like the lawyer who asks a witness “Are you still beating your wife?”, where the witness will look bad either way he responds.

But this is not a serious objection. There is a Yes or No answer to the lawyer’s question, and if the witness is not and never was beating his wife, then the right answer is “No.” If the lawyer is fair, he will allow the witness to go on to say “No, but I was never beating her in the first place.” But whether he allows this or not, it is simply not the case that neither Yes nor No is the correct answer. After all, the question corresponds to the declarative sentence “You are still beating your wife,” and if the witness is not and never was beating his wife, then that sentence is false (rather than being neither true nor false).

Similarly, if Amoris is not asserting either proposition (1) or (2) above, then there is no reason not to say so explicitly, even if one thinks that further comment is necessary beyond saying so. For example, the pope can say “No, of course adulterous sexual acts are never under any circumstances morally permissible, but…,” and then go on to explain exactly what Amoris is asserting if it is not asserting proposition (1).

Now, it is true that the four cardinals’ dubia are formulated as simple Yes or No questions. The cardinals are indeed asking for a Yes or a No, without further commentary. But there is nothing stopping the pope from answering them in a “Yes, but…” or “No, but…” fashion if he prefers. To suppose that the only options facing the pope are either responding with simple and unqualified Yes or No answers, or not responding at all, is itself to commit a False Dichotomy fallacy.

The idea that a simple yes or no will do is, well simplistic. There are too many that believe any no answer will change doctrine. Therefore no answer can be a one word answer.

The blog posting above explains some of the rationale behind the call for a response to the Five Dubia. It is a somewhat lengthy posting (hence I’ve not copied it all here), but contains some reasonable arguments which we shouldn’t dismiss out of hand.