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

[jeannetherese]

To be honest JT it is an issue I have not yet studied closely.
It stems from Jesus’s strange comment in Mt 5:32 where a husband who divorces his wife “causes her to commit adultery.”

Now there seems to be an unresolved debate over how this can be. I tend to agree with Biblical historians who say that a woman with kids cast adrift like this would likely perish if she cannot attach herself to a patron (perhaps a well off and compassionate sibling) or re-marry. In this sense, for the sake of survival, she is “forced” into adultery.

Others, like Billy, explain this by saying that this statement of Jesus would be true even if she remained single. This sounds like a meaning to adultery that most of us are not familiar with. See Post 264 by Billy below where he references a Fr. Mankowski.

While I tend not to agree that Billy’s exegesis is the only one, or even the ascendant Catholic view, it does have plausibility.

Regardless, I consider this definition of “adultery” (even if no longer current) a valid one.
We can see this even in the treatment of couples who simply cohabit as brother and sister…they are still not allowed public Communion. Why, because their state still objectively contradicts Jesus’s teaching on permanent faithfulness. Simply walking out of a marriage (even if staying single) is being unfaithful to the commitment to live together as man and wife.

Even divorcees who never remarry are called to Confess the state of having divorced as it is a situation of “grave matter” - though for the one passively abandoned there may well be no actual personal sin involved.

In short, in the old old days the Biblical realities we translate as “adultery” seem to have had a much broader significance and could mean forms of “unfaithfulness” other than the sexual one.

More summer reading for me.

Thank you for the response. I have much to learn from my fellow posters.
I think the hesitation to give public communion for those living as brother and sister may derive from concerns of giving scandal to those who do not understand the situation (kids in the pews for example).
In charity, it might be best to assume the brother/sister living status, and trust that God will take good care of our friends.
I do know people who have taken steps to avoid the possibility of giving scandal: a husband and wife (now divorced) who are communicating at separate churches and a friend of mine (now deceased) who engaged in a second marriage (civil) and assisted at mass weekly but never approached the communion line.
It tends to be a private situation.

May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
Amen.
jt

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Haydock commentary on this is available here:
studylight.org/commentary/matthew/5-32.html#hcc
It seems to point to remarriage as the problem.

Don’t tell Billy, he is so sure of his view he doesn’t need to check other commentators as you laudably have .

 

[pnewton]

"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.

Perhaps the error is in our nature to oversimplify. The situation was presented to you as one where a woman had to have sex to keep the one providing home and food. In real life, relationships are more complex. Such marriages, even if sought out of convenience develop well past that. Sexual relations are but one part of what the woman provides the man, and the man the woman. For one with little spiritual life, it might be a very large part. I once remember Peter Kreeft described sexual intimacy is the closest some people will come to a religious experience. So in a case where children are best served by the relationship with two parents, there is a moral good to keeping the family unit, and maintaining the health of all the relationships.

For the unequally yoked, where only one is attempting to reconcile with the Church, there is no easy answer.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thank you for the response. I have much to learn from my fellow posters.
I think the hesitation to give public communion for those living as brother and sister may derive from concerns of giving scandal to those who do not understand the situation (kids in the pews for example).
In charity, it might be best to assume the brother/sister living status, and trust that God will take good care of our friends.
I do know people who have taken steps to avoid the possibility of giving scandal: a husband and wife (now divorced) who are communicating at separate churches and a friend of mine (now deceased) who engaged in a second marriage (civil) and assisted at mass weekly but never approached the communion line.
It tends to be a private situation.

May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
Amen.
jt

And thankyou for sharing your interesting stories JT.
Its sad that otherwise good Catholics have to be so furtive re their heroic relationship with Jesus…reminds me of Nicodemus who only visited Jesus by night!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A prostitute is a woman that has sex for money, in a direct, pay per act, situation, usually with multiple people per night, but nonetheless with multiple people. She takes money as payment for the sex act. No marriage, or even an adulterous civil marriage, is prostitution just because the woman is weaker, poorer, or more submissive. I expect men to demean women with this sort of insult, usually with the synonym that begins with a “w”. I did not think women did the same thing.

If nothing else, I am more convinced that the Church sorely needs this exhortation of Amoris Laetitia to help look at these people in difficult circumstances with greater charity and understanding.

I think that when JT likened such a case as prostitutional (“In such a situation, the marriage itself seems to be a prostitutional relationship”) I did not myself take it in so crass a sense. More like a subtle “quid pro quo” situation which is not all that distant from perfectly acceptable, if somewhat less than mature, first marriages. We (or at least myself) have good reason to believe that most people grow beyond such initial and understandable immaturities and so usually take little account of such things early on.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But many women do turn to prostitution because there are no other means. Even though it’s a fictitious example, Fantine from Les Miserables comes to mind. I’m sure her example isn’t that uncommon, and it’s an entirely sympathetic one. Are people like her allowed to receive Communion? I haven’t explored this slant. If the primary intention is economic support, I don’t see too much difference between a prostitute and a woman who is fortunate enough to find a man to support her via marriage. The prostitute just might think the other woman more lucky because she may not have to put up with the same amount of squalor. That is, perhaps, how I would probably feel. If it were a proposition between the streets or economic support, I would prefer to find a man vs. prostitution. Not everyone can do that though.

Yes prostitutes can receive Communion provided they confess regularly.
I used to regularly greet a bevy (is that the right collective term?) of such ladies at our main Sunday morning mass when on duty for some years. I presumed they regularly confessed to the PP who gave them Communion. Not my business.

That is why I find the whole scandal argument thing a bit of a crock to hold back worthy irregulars. I mean, who on earth actually knows whether they got an annulment or not, who knows if they are living as brother and sister or not, who knows if the wife would love to abstain but her husband does not wish to. Who knows if they have lapsed and been to confession or not?

If there is “scandal” the only one who might possibly know these things will be the PP. And even that is not certain. And even if he did, for the above reasons many (whom I know personally from my old theology classes in the 1980s) do not see scandal and allow Communion anyways.

It does seem to be a very weak argument.

 

[jeannetherese]

Perhaps the error is in our nature to oversimplify. The situation was presented to you as one where a woman had to have sex to keep the one providing home and food. In real life, relationships are more complex. Such marriages, even if sought out of convenience develop well past that. Sexual relations are but one part of what the woman provides the man, and the man the woman. For one with little spiritual life, it might be a very large part. I once remember Peter Kreeft described sexual intimacy is the closest some people will come to a religious experience. So in a case where children are best served by the relationship with two parents, there is a moral good to keeping the family unit, and maintaining the health of all the relationships.

For the unequally yoked, where only one is attempting to reconcile with the Church, there is no easy answer.

Thank you for your clarification pnewton. May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
Amen.
jt

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When I say adultery is adultery I am speaking of the mortal sin of adultery. I cannot make this any clearer. As the CCC says, mortal sin is a “radical possibility”. And it is this–mortal sin–of which I have asked a question.

Of course I disagree.

Thomas I think we are on the edge of being unable to communicate further.
The way you jump from proposition to proposition as if the prior self-evidently justifies the posterior makes no sense to me.

May I direct you to one of your first attempts to ask this question on Dec 18th in the Exception to the Exception thread:

Originally Posted by Richca View Post
Having sexual relations outside of one’s lawful spouse is a grave sin, in this case it is the sin of adultery.

This is at the core of the controversy. I have asked several times on the thread whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive communion?

You jump from:
(a) “Having sexual relations outside of one’s lawful spouse is a grave sin (adultery)” TO
(b) “adultery” TO
(c) “person in the state of mortal sin” TO
(d) "When I say adultery … I am speaking of the mortal sin of adultery [as opposed to the venial sin of adultery]

Some of these jumps are complete non-sequitors and some of these propositions are not at all the same.

And when sincere responses are given that try to make sense of this mess you call them equivocal .

So all this inconsistency is not too dissimilar from asking if I have stopped committing adultery with my wife yet? That is, any answer confirms you in your flawed vocab/reasoning/joining of these propositions.

So here’s a last chance for a few clarificatory questions:
(i) do you believe all active irregulars are committing fully culpable personal mortal sins.
(ii) do you accept some irregulars may be regularly committing only venial personal sins in this regard?
(iii) are the latter in a state of mortal sin or a state of venial sin?
(iv) do you see a distinction between the criteria by which a person must judge for himself whether he may approach Communion…AND the criteria by which a priest must decided whether to give Communion? What do you understand them to be?

When you have made these clarifications I will be in a better position to attempt the non-equivocal answer you have been seeking for the last 3 weeks .

I honestly do not recall. There were many long comments on that thread, and I did not even read all of them. The same is true of this thread.

Thomas if you ask a question and people go to some trouble to answer them…then saying “I did not even read all of them” as an excuse for not responding … well why would anyone want to take your questions seriously from this point on?
Just sayin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The discussion on this thread raised the issue of a woman (Post 265/ by Blue) who argued:

"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. "

JT I may have slightly misled your understanding by the ancient Canon Law expression of “paying the marital debt”. It is not meant to indicate some sort of impersonal 2nd marriage of convenience where the 2nd marriage is reduced to little more than a subtle form of food and lodging in return for emotional/sexual favours.

This expression was meant as a quick and euphemistic way of saying that in both the most loving of sacramental marriages and those of hard nosed convenience, the Church has always taught that it is essential that the partners pass mutual rights over their bodies to the other person. It also encompasses the reality observed in teaching of St Paul that marriage is a “cure” for “lust” (i.e. concupiscence) which is usually regarded as stronger in the male. It is also useful to recall in this connection that Paul took it for granted that often men were incapable of the single life so it was for them “better to marry than burn…”. There is also his advice that while it is highly commendable that spiritual couples would fast, pray and abstain from sex, they should not do so for too long!

Yet we regularly have contributors, who perhaps are constitutionally well suited to being monks, advise that the Church’s current rule of permanent abstention for irregulars who wish to receive Communion is difficult but possible and advisable for all. I disagree based on the wise experience of St Paul if normal human wisdom is not enough.

Nor should a non Catholic man who entered in good faith into a loving 1st marriage with a divorcee be assumed “unloving” if he finds himself unable to make the heroic decision that his wife suddenly and incomprehensibly asks of him. It wasn’t what was promised him in the civil marriage afterall. As above, St Paul himself would seem to have grave reservations about the wisdom of imposing such on all men in this very unfortunate situation.

This is why I find significant inconsistency in the current rule that a woman may continue to cohabit for the sake of the children but must force abstention on her loving but incapable husband if she wants to receive Communion.

I would suggest, under these rules and under these marital conditions, that for such a woman coming back to her faith and unable to justify leaving the loving marriage, St Paul may well advise her that Jesus is calling her to be a full wife whenever necessary (ie “pay the marital debt”) and refrain from Communion as a consequence.

Fortunately Pope Francis appears to have gone beyond this stalemate and if a PP discerns there is a worthy case, may be able to allow Communion in the face of this type of decision not to abstain regardless.

I fear that not all US Dioceses will take advantage of this opening. though it appears the Argentinian Bishops will.

 

[Brendan]

I think that when JT likened such a case as prostitutional (“In such a situation, the marriage itself seems to be a prostitutional relationship”) I did not myself take it in so crass a sense. More like a subtle “quid pro quo” situation which is not all that distant from perfectly acceptable, if somewhat less than mature, first marriages. .

So you mean that instead of a prostitution, the relationship is that of a concubine?

A mostly permanent state in which one provides for a live in companion, in exchange for sexual favors.

 

[Brendan]

The problem being is that Lust is the desire for sexual acts that are prohibited, including that*having sex with one who is not your legitimate spouse. When one has the desire to have sex with one who is not one’s valid spouse, and sets their will to do such, that it an act of Lust.

So if we are to take your understandingof St Paul, you are claiming that St Paul is encouraging theactual commission of Lust to prevent Lust… *

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Don’t tell Billy, he is so sure of his view he doesn’t need to check other commentators as you laudably have .

It appears from this remark that you are able to read Billy’s mind; you’re sure he has never checked other commentators, and you then address another poster instead of having the courtesy to make your ‘haha’ joke to him personally.

Objectively speaking it is difficult to engage with those who, when they disagree with you intellectually, cannot address the actual intellectual arguments but insist on ad hominens, personal putdowns, sarcasm, ‘dismissals’ of others as being ‘unworthy to address’ due to their ‘lack’, repeated assertions which have been shown to be problematic but simply ‘bulldozed’ through, etc.

I say it is difficult, not impossible, because obviously, people are capable of taking constructive criticism to heart and making a change. In this New Year, it might be something you–indeed, any or all of us–should consider, if we search our ‘consciences’ with due diligence and find ourselves not without guilt. . .

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas I think we are on the edge of being unable to communicate further.
The way you jump from proposition to proposition as if the prior self-evidently justifies the posterior makes no sense to me.

May I direct you to one of your first attempts to ask this question on Dec 18th in the Exception to the Exception thread:

You jump from:
(a) “Having sexual relations outside of one’s lawful spouse is a grave sin (adultery)” TO
(b) “adultery” TO
(c) “person in the state of mortal sin” TO
(d) "When I say adultery … I am speaking of the mortal sin of adultery [as opposed to the venial sin of adultery]

Some of these jumps are complete non-sequitors and some of these propositions are not at all the same.

And when sincere responses are given that try to make sense of this mess you call them equivocal .

Simply stated, when I have used the terms adultery and/or mortal sin, I mean precisely that, as the terms are commonly understood in standard English: “When I say adultery I am speaking of the mortal sin of adultery.” Again, I cannot make this any clearer.

What you append to this sentence–"[as opposed to the venial sin of adultery]"–is your own inference in your attempt to establish the concept of a venial sin of adultery that would not nullify sanctifying grace. Nice try though.

So all this inconsistency is not too dissimilar from asking if I have stopped committing adultery with my wife yet? That is, any answer confirms you in your flawed vocab/reasoning/joining of these propositions.

So here’s a last chance for a few clarificatory questions:
(i) do you believe all active irregulars are committing fully culpable personal mortal sins.
(ii) do you accept some irregulars may be regularly committing only venial personal sins in this regard?
(iii) are the latter in a state of mortal sin or a state of venial sin?
(iv) do you see a distinction between the criteria by which a person must judge for himself whether he may approach Communion…AND the criteria by which a priest must decided whether to give Communion? What do you understand them to be?

When you have made these clarifications I will be in a better position to attempt the non-equivocal answer you have been seeking for the last 3 weeks .

Your questions are propositions and assume there is the venial sin of adultery. As such, each question is an hypothesis, and an hypothesis cannot be proven true in its own closed system of reasoning. Nonetheless:

1. No, of course not.
2. In this regard? No, not if this means there is a venial sin of adultery. Simply stated, a sin is either adultery or it is not; adultery is a mortal sin. To be clear: "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent’ " (CCC 1857). And it is this that has been meant by “mortal sin”. If the above conditions of CCC 1857 are not met, then the sin is not a mortal sin.
3. A classic example of a leading question. There is no “later” in (ii). However, in accordance with both the CCC 1857 and in the way I have used the terms mortal and adultery, there is no venial sin of adultery.
4. Yes, or at least a distinction is possible as the difference between the Subjective and the Objective.

It is noted that the question of whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive communion is again unanswered.

Thomas if you ask a question and people go to some trouble to answer them…then saying “I did not even read all of them” as an excuse for not responding … well why would anyone want to take your questions seriously from this point on?
Just sayin.

I simply said I honestly did not recall the comment you mentioned. And no, I did not read every comment in that long thread but did look for any that were in reply to a comment I made. However, it is neither necessary nor fair to spin this into a personal fault. With all due respect, your tendency to dismiss those you cannot refute is noted.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you mean that instead of a prostitution, the relationship is that of a concubine?

A mostly permanent state in which one provides for a live in companion, in exchange for sexual favors.

That would be a logical misinterpretation of reality if one considered all irregulars to be without sanctifying grace or love.

Fortunately respected leaders of the Church, like your Pope, see things otherwise and so I would prefer to go with their more divine logic.
Maybe it’s a glass half full sort of thing rather than half empty.

 

[billy15]

Sorry Billy, I am not going to continue this with you…you have so many assumptions about life and Catholic teaching that I do not share that trying to work through that just so we can have a meaningful discussion about AL would render the venture impractical. God bless.

Fair enough. I thought we had been having a pretty amicable discussion, as evidenced by you calling the view I presented to you as having “plausiblity” in your post 294. But then you have to shoot unnecessary barbs, as Tantum Ergo pointed out, by claiming to read my mind that I haven’t done other research. I have, and earlier you said there were other views I should look at, and I simply asked that you post them, as I had no way of knowing if I had read the commentaries you had in mind.

I’m not so “sure of myself” or “view” as you claim, I’m just reiterating what the Church has always taught on this issue. I conform my view to that of the Church, and I have not yet been shown that what the Magisterium has taught us is incorrect. I see no inconsistencies where you claim they are. Neither do the writers of the papal documents I quoted in my last two posts see inconsistencies in the practice of asking these couples to live in continence whole not receiving Communion… unless you can show me where they do. After looking at several sources, the proposition put forth by Fr. Mankowski (and others) makes the most sense in light of Church teaching.

I do hope in due time we can engage in a further, meaningful discussion on this topic, because I still think it’s been amicable and fruitful over all with the exchange of ideas. However, I don’t believe what I’ve presented regarding Catholic teaching are simply assumptions, although I’m sure you disagree. I’ve mainly quoted from magisterial documents that I believe speak for themselves.

If I am guilty of “assumptions about life and Catholic teaching”, then I have to say you have made many assumptions as well, i.e., that adultery can be “indirect” and that “indirect” adultery is permissible, that “scandal argument thing [is] a bit of a crock”, etc. If the scandal that St. John Paul refers to in FC 84 is crrap, then you should be prepared to plainly say that St. John Paul is wrong regarding the scandal that can (and does) occur in this situation regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, and that St. John Paul’s argument is wrong. It’s sad to hear from you that pastors disregarded the commandments of Christ and His Church, and allowed those that are barred from the Eucharist to receive it. That in itself is scandalous.

Anyway, it’s not that I “advise that the Church’s current rule of permanent abstention for irregulars who wish to receive Communion is difficult but possible and advisable for all”… No, I simply reiterate the teaching of the Church and submit to her teachings that she has received from Christ our God. This is why I, and many others, do not find inconsistencies, where you regrettably and unfortunately do.

God bless to you and yours as well.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The problem being is that Lust is the desire for sexual acts that are prohibited, including that*having sex with one who is not your legitimate spouse. When one has the desire to have sex with one who is not one’s valid spouse, and sets their will to do such, that it an act of Lust.

So if we are to take your understandingof St Paul, you are claiming that St Paul is encouraging theactual commission of Lust to prevent Lust… *

Brendon you will see what you want to see.
Perhaps poetry and art are skills that do not come naturally for some.
For those with an open disposition the colloquial way I used the ambiguous word “lust” in the above quick precis aimed at JT (not your good self) is fairly clear.
And for the peepers on our simple conversation I additionally added the ditto marks (I believe you call them scare quotes in your country) as a warning not to take the word in a technically theological sense and be unnecessarily scandalized. I even added the technical word concupiscence for additional belt and braces in this regard.

May I suggest the following aphorism from Aquinas which i have always found useful when my own negative disposition sometimes casts a negative light upon others that isn’t always there.
*
“When talking with those who disagree with our views we Christians in responding should always assume the very best interpretation of their words and not the converse*.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Fair enough. I thought we had been having a pretty amicable discussion, as evidenced by you calling the view I presented to you as having “plausiblity” in your post 294. But then you have to shoot unnecessary barbs, as Tantum Ergo pointed out, by claiming to read my mind that I haven’t done other research. I have, and earlier you said there were other views I should look at, and I simply asked that you post them, as I had no way of knowing if I had read the commentaries you had in mind.

I’m not so “sure of myself” or “view” as you claim, I’m just reiterating what the Church has always taught on this issue. I conform my view to that of the Church, and I have not yet been shown that what the Magisterium has taught us is incorrect. I see no inconsistencies where you claim they are. Neither do the writers of the papal documents I quoted in my last two posts see inconsistencies in the practice of asking these couples to live in continence whole not receiving Communion… unless you can show me where they do. After looking at several sources, the proposition put forth by Fr. Mankowski (and others) makes the most sense in light of Church teaching.

I do hope in due time we can engage in a further, meaningful discussion on this topic, because I still think it’s been amicable and fruitful over all with the exchange of ideas. However, I don’t believe what I’ve presented regarding Catholic teaching are simply assumptions, although I’m sure you disagree. I’ve mainly quoted from magisterial documents that I believe speak for themselves.

If I am guilty of “assumptions about life and Catholic teaching”, then I have to say you have made many assumptions as well, i.e., that adultery can be “indirect” and that “indirect” adultery is permissible, that “scandal argument thing [is] a bit of a crock”, etc. If the scandal that St. John Paul refers to in FC 84 is crrap, then you should be prepared to plainly say that St. John Paul is wrong regarding the scandal that can (and does) occur in this situation regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, and that St. John Paul’s argument is wrong. It’s sad to hear from you that pastors disregarded the commandments of Christ and His Church, and allowed those that are barred from the Eucharist to receive it. That in itself is scandalous.

Anyway, it’s not that I “advise that the Church’s current rule of permanent abstention for irregulars who wish to receive Communion is difficult but possible and advisable for all”… No, I simply reiterate the teaching of the Church and submit to her teachings that she has received from Christ our God. This is why I, and many others, do not find inconsistencies, where you regrettably and unfortunately do.

God bless to you and yours as well.

Billy this is not a big deal. Because my views differ from yours does not mean I view yours as unacceptable. We live in a Church where many things are undecided and grey. Your exegesis of the text is plausible as I noted to JT. God bless and thank you for the above.

 

[billy15]

Again, fair enough. I’ll close in saying I agree there are some gray areas, but I do not believe all aspects of what we discussed fit in this category, i.e., that someone freely fornicating with someone who is not their true spouse is indisposed to receive the Eucharist per FC 84 and SC 29. But, some aspects may. In any case, please keep me and my family in your prayers, and be assured I’ll do the same for you and yours.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Objectively speaking it is difficult to engage with those who, when they disagree with you intellectually, cannot address the actual intellectual arguments but insist on ad hominens, personal putdowns, sarcasm, ‘dismissals’ of others as being ‘unworthy to address’ due to their ‘lack’, repeated assertions which have been shown to be problematic but simply ‘bulldozed’ through, etc.
.

One person’s dismissal is another’s “let’s admit we aren’t actually communicating and amicably let it go” I suggest TE.
This may be another example.
God bless.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One person’s dismissal is another’s “let’s admit we aren’t actually communicating and amicably let it go” I suggest TE.
This may be another example.
God bless.

Then, with respect, I suggest that one use "let’s admit we aren’t communicating and amicably let it go’ instead, BH. That works quite well. And I freely acknowledge that in your posts so far this morning you have indeed been charitable, thoughtful, etc. In that spirit, God bless you and yours and best wishes for a fruitful, Christ-filled, joyous year.