Beyond my pay grade.it’s a matter of which side God views as the true church.
I don’t need to decide anything right now. I can’t decide for or against an unknown. That is what I believe about it. However, that may change.The decision you make needs to be a reflection of your beliefs and not a matter of following a person regardless of who he is.
More disturbing is the basis that FC gives for that teaching. How does AL dispense with it?
JPII asserts that the primary ground is that their public “state and condition” objectively contradicts.They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
I don’t think I see much contradiction. The greater problem for me is how Francis does not in any way connect what he proposes to what went before.JPII asserts that the primary ground is that their public “state and condition” objectively contradicts.
“State” would seem to refer to the 2nd civil remarriage. It is not clear whether “condition” is but a more informal repetition of “state” (eg de facto cohabitation) or whether it is referring to a sexual relationship. The latter seems less likely as “objectively” does not fit well with something that is inferred rather than known.
The above statement is made more problematic by JPII’s novel exemption of abstention which allows access to Communion provided no scandal is involved. This seems to suggest that the objective remarriage/cohabitation (state and condition) does not intrinsically prohibit Communion access.
So there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Often we question any position defended on more than one basis ["Methinks he protesteth to much!]. But - public communion may risk scandal, though I agree entirely that the community often has no firm knowledge about divorces, annulments, etc.The next sentence (Besides…) makes the primary reason sound weak. Its as if JPII himself felt his primary argument was less than absolute and needed further propping up if it failed in some cases.
I think the green light on sex here is only ever going to be a very very small number of highly worthy and unusual cases and not worth worrying about. (And clearly the sine qua non to even fly would have to be irreconcilable first marriage, objective sinfulness of sundering the 2nd marriage, inability or incomprehension of one partner (likely a non Catholic male) to abstain.)“Most unsettling of all is the suggestion in AL that continuing the sexual relationship in the new union could be the right thing to do. I don’t know what theological reasoning underpins that conclusion, and I can see how it could seem in contradiction with what the church teaches about intrinsically evil acts. Do you have more insight in this point?”
I concur with your “in theory” view that those given a “green light” as you say ought be very few and far between. And I certainly pity the poor parish priest who is supposed to make this determination. But notwithstanding all that, if such a greenlight can be given, I am yet to hear how it is not in conflict with teaching concerning intrinsically evil acts. It is most understandable that the Dubia address this point.I think the green light on sex here is only ever going to be a very very small number of highly worthy and unusual cases and not worth worrying about. (And clearly the sine qua non to even fly would have to be irreconcilable first marriage, objective sinfulness of sundering the 2nd marriage, inability or incomprehension of one partner (likely a non Catholic male) to abstain.)
Those who want to have apriori justifications (rather than aposteriori which does not get concerned re outlier seeming “exceptions”) clearly identified and run to ground will still be unhappy I suppose despite the very small 0.01% possibility.
So, once a previously prohibited practice becomes sufficiently widespread, moral theology finds a way to justify it? This would also work to justify same sex unions, cohabitation, and a number of other things. The principle could undermine any stable moral theology whatsoever, and find a way to contradict the words of Christ.My take is that Catholic Theology is really formulated in the breach by inspiration of the times and the justifying theology/principles done in hindsight after everybody takes for granted the need for the new practice (cf Good Samaritan).
Like Jesus did with working on the Sabbath? The correct answer to the question is “maybe.” There are absolute constraints, like adultery is always sinful. Nothing that is being done now contradicts this absolute.So, once a previously prohibited practice becomes sufficiently widespread, moral theology finds a way to justify it?
And yet Jesus did not reply “maybe” to the question of whether divorce is lawful or not. Now, some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia seem to take the view that adultery might be lawful depending on the circumstances.Like Jesus did with working on the Sabbath? The correct answer to the question is “maybe.” There are absolute constraints, like adultery is always sinful. Nothing that is being done now contradicts this absolute.
I did not use that word to describe whether divorce is lawful or not. That was the answer to a different question. I do not understand why you plugged it onto this question. “So, once a previously prohibited practice becomes sufficiently widespread, moral theology finds a way to justify it?” Is what you asked. It is a general question. Therefore my answer was correct. Practice (the word you used) can change.And yet Jesus did not reply “maybe” to the question of whether divorce is lawful or not.
What do you understand to be the basis for the statement in AL to the effect that continuing in the relationship is what God may want?Nothing that is being done now contradicts this absolute.
Are these credible sources. Could you please reference/link to them.formal correction will occur shortly, according to news sources.
Well yes, i hope you do not mind my observing you may be one of the apriori thinking type for whom even a 0.01% nonuniformity is an intellectual itch that cannot be scratched. I have no answer for you other than my simple observation that for all its grand theology the Church in my experience is not a monolithic intellectual system like Greek Stoicism or Platonism or Aristotelianism. It is a praxis, a system lived in the breach and only seamlessly justified in an intellectual manner in hindsight…and even then not perfectly so as only time and customary answers really glue this allegedly seamless intellectual approach together.But notwithstanding all that, if such a greenlight can be given, I am yet to hear how it is not in conflict with teaching concerning intrinsically evil acts. It is most understandable that the Dubia address this point.
I see. Plse direct us to the following parts of the article if/when they appear.the article can be found here - http://katolikusvalasz.blog.hu/2017/09/06/exclusive_interview_with_cdl_raymond_burke_part_i