Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

[BlackFriar]

In high school classes we were told to be very sure about who we married because if we ever divorced we could never marry again, at least not in the Catholic Church.

Hmmmn, I never had that advice at high school. Are you talking 1960s?

Did you really mean the word “divorced”…or did your RE teachers really mean “if you ever separate”.

 

[Vadne]

It’s one of the perverse features of this “brave new world” since Amoris Laetitia that people who defend traditional Catholic moral teachings are somehow labeled children, and those who push novel, relativistic ideas for the mature, sophisticated adults.

 

[JimG]

I’m older than that; I’m talking 1958-59 or thereabouts. The priest who gave this advice was talking about civil divorce, which from the Catholic standpoint is a de facto separation but the marriage remains indissoluble. In fact, my wife’s aunt whom I mentioned was denied an annulment. She later remarried civilly, to a non-Catholic, but continued to be active in her parish. She just did not receive communion. Once, much later, when the subject came up, I suggested she might even at that late date file an appeal, since the standards for a declaration of nullity had seemingly been loosened. She would not hear of it. She remained a faithful Catholic throughout her life. Later in life, her civil husband developed serious medical condtions and was no longer able to engage in marital relations. At that point she returned to confession and communion.

 

[irenaeus1]

I think as we move forward we will find that the moral constraints of Catholic teaching will simply not allow some mass influx of communion recipients as some fear, and as others hope. I sure haven’t seen this yet.

It depends on where you live. Again, when a bishop celebrates a Mass and specifically invites divorced and remarried couples to come forward for Holy Communion, and 30 or so approach, that’s a mass influx - not rare, exceptional circumstances.

 

[irenaeus1]

If I were to answer them, I would say 2,3, and 4 are obviously “yes.”

The answer to 1 and 5 can be “yes” or “no” depending on the definition of terms. For example, surely conscience might"overcome" objective mortal sin in the final judgment. It is also possible to take this question as a re-phrasing of the fourth question.

The answer to 1 has to be “no”. It involves grave matter and they know that to be the case (especially after accompaniment and discernment). This idea that they cannot do anything but commit adultery, thus eliminating willful consent) seems ludricrous, nor have I seen that line of thinking extended to other intrinsic matters regarding evil. Why does not the church extend an invitation to Holy Communion to child predators, human traffickers, racists, etc.?

 

[eddietoo]

as you read about amoris laetitia and the debate swirling around it, try to remember that: 1) just being married in front of the priest does not infallibly mean the marriage is a sacrament; 2) that marriage tribunal decisions are not infallible; and, 3) that neither you nor anyone else engaged in the debate know a single thing about who and what is being discerned under the guidelines presented in amoris laetitia.

one other point, none of us know what is going on in the homes of catholics who have entered second marriages while their first partner is living.

amoris laetitia has not changed any teaching on the sanctity of marriage or the state of grace necessary for a holy reception of sacred communion.

 

[oppositeman13]

I think Cardinal Burke would disagree - while AL cannot change official teaching it is still being implemented - no one I know of has made an argument that it is an extension or clarification of official teaching and therefore allowed - people seem to skip over that important point.

 

[Rau]

This idea that they cannot do anything but commit adultery, thus eliminating willful consent) seems ludricrous, nor have I seen that line of thinking extended to other intrinsic matters regarding evil.

The suggestion (I believe) is that should the catholic (woman, say) cease the sexual relations, the (say, non catholic) man might not accept this and thus the union would fail causing harm to the children. The woman is being held culpable for this harm (i.e. It’s being called personally sinful). So she has to choose “which sin” to commit - she is between a rock and a hard place.

Her choice appears to be between an intrinsically evil act and an alternative with bad consequences.

This of course assumes there is in truth an adulterous quality to the relationship. How this may or may not change according to the realities of her first marriage (despite lack of annulment) is another matter.

 

[Rau]

Why does not the church extend an invitation to Holy Communion to child predators, human traffickers, racists, etc.?

I don’t see that these people face a situation in any way similar to the divorced and remarried. Eg. Ceasing to be a child predator harms no one.

 

[Rau]

amoris laetitia has not changed any teaching on the sanctity of marriage or the state of grace necessary for a holy reception of sacred communion.

That’s true. It does say that engaging in presumptively (or “formally”) adulterous acts in a difficult situation may not render oneself unworthy to receive. The reasons given appear to be a discernment of conscience, validity of prior marriage, responsibility for prior marriage breakdown and the adverse consequences of ceasing those acts.

 

[irenaeus1]

The suggestion (I believe) is that should the catholic (woman, say) cease the sexual relations, the (say, non catholic) man might not accept this and thus the union would fail causing harm to the children. The woman is being held culpable for this harm (i.e. It’s being called personally sinful). So she has to choose “which sin” to commit - she is between a rock and a hard place.

Her choice appears to be between an intrinsically evil act and an alternative with bad consequences.

This of course assumes there is in truth an adulterous quality to the relationship. How this may or may not change according to the realities of her first marriage (despite lack of annulment) is another matter

I have heard this hypothetical before, and while plausible, this situation would then only allow the woman to approach Holy Communion – not the man since he is somewhat holding her hostage. But all the interpretations and ‘invitations’ for the divorced and civilly remarried to approach the altar rail are directed toward the couple… including the 30 or so couples who were invited by a bishop to receive Holy Communion during Mass.

 

[irenaeus1]

I don’t see that these people face a situation in any way similar to the divorced and remarried. Eg. Ceasing to be a child predator harms no one.

Any number of reasons could be brought forward. A pimp, sex trafficker, mafia member could say that he has no other choice but to continue in his activity – after all, that may be all he knows, and the only way to provide for his wife and kids. His wife may even threaten to leave him if he quits the business.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, that would be if it happened. I am skeptical that such a thing would actually happen. However, if a bishop did that, it would be no more in line with Amortis Laetitia that it was with Familiaris Consortio. It would be a case of a bishop ignoring the Pope, not of following the Pope.

The answer to 1 has to be “no”.

Has to be? As I keep saying, time will tell, but for now, at least one Cardinal disagrees with you.

Cardinal Schönborn: “All the [Dubia] Questions Can Be Answered ‘Yes’”

 

[BlackFriar]

I’m older than that; I’m talking 1958-59 or thereabouts.

Your wife’s aunt sounds a very admirable person.
Likewise your advice to her was also spot on…without knowing the details its hard to say whether or nor she would have got an annulment 2nd time around but as you say chances were good given that the bar was set very high up until the 70s. & 80s so as to stop the “plague”. It didn’t work of course because the causes are societal not personal and so beyond the power of the Church to stop simply by disciplinary measures.

However, if she had come to the conscience view that her first marriage was valid (even if it objectively was not for reasons outside of her control) then her course of action is the only one possible before God regardless of the liberties possibly allowed by AL (or more relaxed tribunals).
It is unfortunate such active loyal and graced Catholics are denied the food for the journey that Communion is meant to provide - many others in her position are not so strong.

The priest who gave this advice was talking about civil divorce, which from the Catholic standpoint is a de facto separation

If you go into the matter I believe you will find you are mistaken on this…it is probably your interpretation of what the priest was saying rather than what he actually would have said - especially in the 1950s when the Church’s teaching on divorce was much more clearly understood than it is today.

While I understand what you are saying a Catholic choosing Civil Divorce and one choosing Separation from bed and board in the face of a failed marriage are two very different choices. One is an objectively immoral abiding counter witness to Jesus’s teaching on marriage - the other is not. That teaching has not changed though the widespread lay acceptance of civil divorce as normative in the face of a dysfunctional marriage has obscured this underlying reality. The Church has in more recent times accepted that there can be good reasons for tolerating this disorder (eg preserving assets of the abandoned victim and the children) - a complete reversal of the attitudes present even in 1917 Canon Law (only abrogated in 1983) where civil divorce by a Catholic was abhorred and considered completely illicit. The current CCC says there are situations when choosing civil divorce can be tolerated and does not constitute a “moral offence.”
While lay readers often interpret that to mean it is no longer objectively immoral it would seem that is not correct given traditional teaching and the presence of the word “tolerated”. It would therefore more liokely mean “not personally culpably immoral” rather than “not objectively immoral”.
It is just as objectively disordered as a civil remarriage, though obviously not so grave.

 

[BlackFriar]

when a bishop celebrates a Mass and specifically invites divorced and remarried couples to come forward for Holy Communion, and 30 or so approach, that’s a mass influx - not rare, exceptional circumstances.

I would think that most intelligent readers of AL, whether for or agin, would see this bishop’s actions as aberrant and not in conformity with the provisions or principles of AL whatsoever.

 

[Rau]

Any number of reasons could be brought forward. A pimp, sex trafficker, mafia member could say that he has no other choice but to continue in his activity – after all, that may be all he knows, and the only way to provide for his wife and kids. His wife may even threaten to leave him if he quits the business.

But none as realistic as the divorced and remarried case.

 

[Rau]

But all the interpretations and ‘invitations’ for the divorced and civilly remarried to approach the altar rail are directed toward the couple… including the 30 or so couples who were invited by a bishop to receive Holy Communion during Mass.

If you’ve read AL you would know that such an invitation to communion is aberrant and would find no basis at all in anything written in AL. Were you at that mass?

 

[BlackFriar]

This idea that they cannot do anything but commit adultery, thus eliminating willful consent) seems ludricrous

Why does it seem ludicrous?

nor have I seen that line of thinking extended to other intrinsic matters regarding evil.

Yes, I agree, its a very interesting type of moral conundrum that has only seems to have come to the fore since the 1980s as I have opined below.

Another example would be the licitness of me slipping a packet of condoms into my naiive 17 year old hormonal daughter’s hand as she rushes out the door on a Sat night for a party saying “just in case.”
I am not condoning fornication, she knows I have lectrured her on this and indeed she is not intending fornication. But she is not worldly wise yet.

Therefore where is the culpable personal sin in wisely anticipating a scenario where good human intentions will likely fail non-culpably and freely and wisely choosing to avoid the disordered consequences of such moments of unfreedom? It will hopefully be a learning experience and condoms will eventually not be needed because my daughter will learn a bit of worldly wisdom without the damaging results. She will effect her actual intent (no sex) by next time wisely avoiding such situations in the first place. If she does not learn and change her strategies then her good intent can no longer be presumed. The law of gradualness.

Remarriages, according to AL, are a similar moral conundrum where non-culpable objective sin (choosing to staying in the 2nd marriage) and culpable sin (abandoning the second marriage and revictimising the partner and any new kids) are unfortunately set in mutually exclusive opposition.

It is fairly clear that if one has to choose between indirectly choosing a grave objective evil and a certain culpable moral evil then the former is the correct and only choice. Just like lethal self-defence.

 

[Rau]

BF - I like this persona better than your previous one.

 

[BlackFriar]

A pimp, sex trafficker, mafia member could say that he has no other choice but to continue in his activity – after all, that may be all he knows, and the only way to provide for his wife and kids. His wife may even threaten to leave him if he quits the business.

Yes, essentially I believe this is correct in so far as the issue is no longer to be settled “apriori” (purely on mathematical application of a single principle) but “aposteriori” (prudential examination of the situation and applying the usual range of principles as in any complex double effect situation).
That is, in situations which have evil results regardless of choice then a prudential judgement must be made as to the true balance of outcomes, weighing the good and bad results against each other.

That is exactly what JPII did. He agreed that some new irregular marriages cannot be quit without further culpable evil which would be greater than the good achieved by quitting… and so the Church must tolerate the situation even if the couple are unable to abstain.

But your example above does not necessarily reach the same conclusion in terms of a prudential judgement I would think. A good faith non Catholic husband who marries for the first time not understanding the complexities of a lapsed Catholic former wife’s situation has every right to expect a carnal relationship and his partner to provide it if she promised such in her civil vows.
The partner of a mafia member hardly has any reasonable ground for expecting a partner to remain with the mafia.