G
gilliam
Guest
Could be another congregation (i.e., Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) that could respond as well.
However, I don’t know if we will ever see anything publicly about all this.
Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year
- Status
However, I don’t know if we will ever see anything publicly about all this.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Frankly, I find the posts in this thread bizarre and can only attribute that to the fact that people are wildly speculating about a thing with which, evidently, they have no practical experience.
No, of course Cardinals are not the only ones who can submit a dubium to the Holy See.
Dubia, in fact, are submitted on a very regular basis and they are not as shrouded in mystery as you seem to think…
it might come out decades later after the source, and the pope, have died, that dubia were submitted decades ago
No. These are not like an appeal made to the apostolic penitentiary where one would be guarded because they concern matters of the internal forum. Dubia are entirely related to the external forum and so their submission is a topic of conversation but typically engaging those somehow directly involved.
I remember a number years ago, long before Pope Francis, a particular issue that was submitted as a dubium. It arrived from multiple bishops around the world. The answer was, in every case, silence. Various bishops, when they were in Rome, also made personal appeals to the Pope for an answer. His response was still silence. The dubium would go unanswered…because the Holy Father chose not to answer it. Case closed.
That is always the Pope’s prerogative and everyone in the Church is in absolute and utter subservience to the Vicar of Christ.
As for the comments of others highly placed, it is the Cardinals themselves who chose to make public the dubia they submitted. In multiple instances now, the Cardinals have presented their position. If the Holy Father does not decide in their favour, then they are without any recourse. It is purely and simply the Holy Father’s personal decision to which every single person in the Church must ultimately submit.
Finally, if you would like to see a textbook example of a dubium submitted and with response, also in textbook formulation, you may look here.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
Note the formulation of the submitted dubium…it is one sentence, not paragraphs. And truly admits of an answer of “Affirmative” or “Negative” that does not require the vast use of explanatory clauses.
P
pnewton
Guest
Belief in absolute truth is not belief in simplistic absolute truth. I do not believe the questions have a yes or no answer that would not leave some with the mistaken idea that doctrine has been contradicted.
For example, I could answer them and I assure you someone would say my answer had to either contradict doctrine or contradict one of the other answers. Why? Universal questions like, “Is it possible…” allow for more options than most will consider.
For example, I am sure the answer to the first will be “yes”. I do not know what is traditional for people who ask for clarifications, but this first dubia is odd in that it asks a question on the face, the first part, then has an argument against an answer in the notes. By the way, the argument is not logically complete. I can think of two other possibilities not mentioned in just a little bit of reflection.
No, these are not “doubts”. They are arguments. This is not to say they do not need to be addressed. However, if the Holy Father does not want to answer them, I at least understand on possible reason he may not.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Again, and as provided in comments #203 and #235: “There either is or is not an Absolute Truth.”
The comment does not concern the dubia. It is rather the question of whether there is or is not Absolute Truth. I do not understand what a “simplistic absolute truth” might be. Is it that it is believed there are two forms of Absolute Truth? Or is it perhaps that one prefers not to answer the question? I doubt either is what you meant, but if so, it would be understandable for no one has yet answered the simple question of whether a person in the state of mortal sin ought to be permitted to receive communion. No, it seems it would rather be argued what “a state of mortal sin” might mean or what is meant by “adultery”.
I do not mean to imply you have raised these arguments. You have not. But it does seem to me there is much confusion about what is not really complex. This raises another issue, and that it does would seem to mean there ought to be clarification of what so many perceive as ambiguity in AL.
P
pnewton
Guest
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.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Surely, it routinely occurs that a person in a state of mortal sin will tell another person, such as a confessor, priest or some significant other, of this fact. In that way, others can know it too. As I understand it, there are those who believe, perhaps as the result of perceived ambiguity of certain provisions of AL–provisions noted on this and other recent threads–that at least some persons in the known state of the mortal sin of adultery will be permitted to receive communion. Again, I see no good reason to quibble about the meaning of these commonly understood terms.
This is the actual issue.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The actual issue is that this is a matter which calls for the action of the bishops and, with and under them, the action of the priests. And that is it.
We have written and implemented our guidelines. No one in the room had need of saying “As I understand it.” Neither was there any reference by anyone to “perceived ambiguity.”
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are correct.
F
felsguy
Guest
IMHO these are two of the most insightful posts out of the 244 that I just finished reading over the past hour or so. It would not surprise me a bit that similar judgments are a (the?) major factor in His Holiness speaking and acting as he has in this matter.
G
gilliam
Guest
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.
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.
…
The case of the abandoned woman came up frequently in the synod as an example of where the law identifying all divorced and remarried as adulterers was simply too crude to capture particular human realities, and where discernment was necessary. This was the approach agreed to by the synod, developed in Amoris, and explicitly rejected by the cardinal’s supporters.
Yet none of them have explained why this hypothetical woman should be treated as an adulterer. No one has convincingly shown how the simple application of the law is adequate and necessary in her case.
No one has even commented on that, or any other, concrete case. Instead, the law has been repeated and reaffirmed - that adulterers may not receive the Eucharist, and that Amoris is heretical to suggest otherwise.
In other words, we have here two radically divergent approaches: one which seeks to discern and integrate, attentive to the different circumstances, the other which seeks to apply the law uniformly and refuses even to discriminate between different cases, for fear it will lead to conforming to divorce.
cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/30/critics-amoris-need-look-concrete-cases/
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.
…
The case of the abandoned woman came up frequently in the synod as an example of where the law identifying all divorced and remarried as adulterers was simply too crude to capture particular human realities, and where discernment was necessary. This was the approach agreed to by the synod, developed in Amoris, and explicitly rejected by the cardinal’s supporters.
Yet none of them have explained why this hypothetical woman should be treated as an adulterer. No one has convincingly shown how the simple application of the law is adequate and necessary in her case.
No one has even commented on that, or any other, concrete case. Instead, the law has been repeated and reaffirmed - that adulterers may not receive the Eucharist, and that Amoris is heretical to suggest otherwise.
In other words, we have here two radically divergent approaches: one which seeks to discern and integrate, attentive to the different circumstances, the other which seeks to apply the law uniformly and refuses even to discriminate between different cases, for fear it will lead to conforming to divorce.
cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/30/critics-amoris-need-look-concrete-cases/
T
Thomas_White
Guest
With all due respect, I stand by my comment (#242) as it is.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Where has it been determined that such “rare cases” are the only ones at question here?
It seem to me that in the example Ivereigh gives of the “woman abandoned,” that despite the horrible actions of her husband, it doesn’t mean she was not in marriage that was valid. And if her marriage was valid, and would be determined to be valid if looked at in a tribunal, that would mean she wouldn’t be able to receive Communion if she remarried. If the status of her marriage cannot be determined in a tribunal, their can surely only be doubt as to the status of her former marriage, that it could have been valid or it could not be valid, and what is being dealt with here is a Sacrament and when your dealing with such situation of doubt, that is surely not a good situation to be somebody Holy Communion in.
T
TCEL
Guest
I found this insight helpful. At this point, a lot of things are speculative, but I appreciate that it didn’t patronize or beat around the bush. It hits the nail on the head for my personal concern- about the nature of marriage. It has nothing to do with being pharisaical. (The Pharisees were more lax in their view of marriage.)
m.ncregister.com/51957/d#.WGfEwjRHYaE
m.ncregister.com/51957/d#.WGfEwjRHYaE
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Well said. Perhaps the following would be of interest:
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark: 10: 11-12).
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke: 16: 18).
“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew: 5:32). emphasis added
While at first glance this seems clear enough, where is it said in these verses that the one who is divorced commits adultery (or, in Matthew, of their own free will)?
C
commenter
Guest
There **are ****no **valid “technical reasons” for bypassing the Church’s chosen ministry trained and experienced in helping people regarding marriages - that is, the marriage tribunal. What people call “technical reasons” refers to Scripture and the Church’s experience with marriage. The media keeps repeating the idea that the Tribunals are staffed by cold bureaucrats limited by icy regulations written for ancient times, whereas the “private forum” has access to insight and compassion unavailable to the rigid bureaucrats. This is ludicrous.
As a social worker I never had to worry about being out of a job, as so much of the grief I saw was in second or third marriages. The erosion of what you call “technical reasons” was also impacting on first marriages, now perceived by many as temporary or provisional - they have older siblings who are now divorced/remarried.
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?
R
Randolph
Guest
To put it simply, this teaching came directly from the lips of our Lord. Our Lord could not have said it any clearer. No popes, no bishops and no priests can undermine our Lord.
B
billy15
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
B
billy15
Guest
"Gilliam:
And my answer was this: “No. I will have made a vow by that time, to be committed to her no matter what happens. If she breaks our vow, that’s on her and that’s her problem. You both might find this cheesy, but I don’t break my promises. And I made a promise before her and before God that we will be united until one of us dies. Just because she breaks our vows doesn’t mean I must, or that I should have to.”
I expected our foreman to burst out laughing, as he was a lapsed Catholic, but he surprised me and said, “No, I actually find that very admirable”. He went on to say that he was engaged once, but broke off the engagement because he wasn’t sure that he could make that vow to be faithful until death; he couldn’t promise to make that commitment. He’s lived the single life ever since.
Now, if this were to ever happen to me (and I have no reason whatsoever to think it should, my wife and I are 100% committed to each other), perhaps I would try for an annulment. I have multiple children right now to worry about; remarriage might be helpful. But if it was found our marriage was as presumed before she left me, valid, then I would submit to the Church’s teaching and resolve to live the rest of my days alone and chaste, no matter how hard that may be.
In the example of the abandoned woman given, I feel absolutely horrible for her. She can’t be put in the exact same category of her philandering husband. While the article from Crux makes some good points, the author goes a bit too far in saying “Yet none of them have explained why this hypothetical woman should be treated as an adulterer. No one has convincingly shown how the simple application of the law is adequate and necessary in her case.”
Have we forgotten, that by engaging in a sexual relationship with her civilly married (second) husband, she too has broken her marital vows? The old, simple saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” fits here. What happened to her was unjust, unfair, unloving, and just plain wrong. But to break those vows she made before her lawfully wedded husband and her God is also wrong. Perhaps she has had a radical conversion since she civilly married her second husband… but does that change the fact that the vows she exchanged with her first husband are presumed to be from a valid marriage until a decree of nullity is issued? If she has had such a radical conversion, then would not that radical conversion to obey our Lord compel her to turn away from all sin, including fornication, as St. John Paul II tells us, specifically, in FC 84?
Of course, this would be difficult to do. But thankfully God doesn’t leave us hanging. He gives us the grace we need to live up to His commandments. Such a woman wouldn’t be treated as an adulterer simply because her husband left her and their children for another woman. I would not be treated as an adulterer if my wife suddenly made a 180, got up, and left me and our children for another man. But I would, and should be, treated as an adulterer if I have a sexual relationship with someone who is not my wife, much less begin living with her after marrying civilly outside the Church, thereby giving scandal to my young children instead of showing them that one does not need break the vows of their valid marriage because the other party did.
I remember when I was days away from getting married, I was at work sitting down for lunch in the stairwell of the building I was working at with my partner and our foreman. My partner was about 20 years old, the foreman in his early 50’s. We started talking about my upcoming nuptials and my partner asked me what would happen to me if my wife cheated on me. I told him I’d be hurt, but it wouldn’t change anything, we’re in it for the long haul. He pressed me again, totally incredulous, and asked what I would do if she cheated on me, got up and left with the other guy and left me completely. Shouldn’t I be able to go find another woman too?
And my answer was this: “No. I will have made a vow by that time, to be committed to her no matter what happens. If she breaks our vow, that’s on her and that’s her problem. You both might find this cheesy, but I don’t break my promises. And I made a promise before her and before God that we will be united until one of us dies. Just because she breaks our vows doesn’t mean I must, or that I should have to.”
I expected our foreman to burst out laughing, as he was a lapsed Catholic, but he surprised me and said, “No, I actually find that very admirable”. He went on to say that he was engaged once, but broke off the engagement because he wasn’t sure that he could make that vow to be faithful until death; he couldn’t promise to make that commitment. He’s lived the single life ever since.
Now, if this were to ever happen to me (and I have no reason whatsoever to think it should, my wife and I are 100% committed to each other), perhaps I would try for an annulment. I have multiple children right now to worry about; remarriage might be helpful. But if it was found our marriage was as presumed before she left me, valid, then I would submit to the Church’s teaching and resolve to live the rest of my days alone and chaste, no matter how hard that may be.
In the example of the abandoned woman given, I feel absolutely horrible for her. She can’t be put in the exact same category of her philandering husband. While the article from Crux makes some good points, the author goes a bit too far in saying “Yet none of them have explained why this hypothetical woman should be treated as an adulterer. No one has convincingly shown how the simple application of the law is adequate and necessary in her case.”
Have we forgotten, that by engaging in a sexual relationship with her civilly married (second) husband, she too has broken her marital vows? The old, simple saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” fits here. What happened to her was unjust, unfair, unloving, and just plain wrong. But to break those vows she made before her lawfully wedded husband and her God is also wrong. Perhaps she has had a radical conversion since she civilly married her second husband… but does that change the fact that the vows she exchanged with her first husband are presumed to be from a valid marriage until a decree of nullity is issued? If she has had such a radical conversion, then would not that radical conversion to obey our Lord compel her to turn away from all sin, including fornication, as St. John Paul II tells us, specifically, in FC 84?
Of course, this would be difficult to do. But thankfully God doesn’t leave us hanging. He gives us the grace we need to live up to His commandments. Such a woman wouldn’t be treated as an adulterer simply because her husband left her and their children for another woman. I would not be treated as an adulterer if my wife suddenly made a 180, got up, and left me and our children for another man. But I would, and should be, treated as an adulterer if I have a sexual relationship with someone who is not my wife, much less begin living with her after marrying civilly outside the Church, thereby giving scandal to my young children instead of showing them that one does not need break the vows of their valid marriage because the other party did.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
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.
An abandoned wife with kids, failing a compassionate and wealthy patron, was doomed to poverty and death in Jesus’s time. Prostitution or remarriage would really be her only de facto options for keeping her children alive.
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?
I am heartened we have another Pope who recgonises these difficulties but also has the courage and imagination to devise and implement a solution.
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.
Sure, some people possess the natural discipline from upbringing or circumstances or genes that bring abstention or heroic life choices within their reach even if difficult. Others must be prudentially judged as not being able to do so in the short or medium term even with the benefit of grace. 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 not.
I do not believe this is the import of Mt 5:32, at least not for the woman abandoned which is the situation we are discussing rather than the man who abandoned her or the man who received her.
I believe we must be careful not to confuse natural fortitude (heroism) with God’s grace. They are two different categories . As they say, martyrs are such by their love not their heroic deeds. There are many non-heroes who may well be closer to God in their failures before God than heroes in their successes for God.
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.
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”…I believe Jesus was clearly making a distinction between two sorts of “adultery” in Mt 5:32. Only one sort was targeted in the Commandments…the other may not be unworthy of Jesus’s loving gaze…and Communion as Pope Francis and other Cardinals indicate.
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife…makes her the victim of adultery…”
- Status