Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

[Vadne]

Communion may never be received by those who are in a state of objective mortal sin (which is not the same as being culpable for the objective sin). Most Catholics understood that basic tenet of moral theology until Amoris Laetitia opened the door to wildly divergent interpretations.

The pope could end this mess…but while he has time to insult traditional Catholics regularly, he has not had time to address this crisis.

 

[oppositeman13]

About Amoris Laetitia and the possible correction of Pope Francis’s teachings

Katolikus Válasz: Some prominent voices in the Hungarian Church and in the Vatican (e.g. Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto in a 2016 interview) have claimed that all the teachings included in Pope Francis’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, reflects what the bishops at the 2014 and 2015 synods on the family supported with a majority vote. Is this true?

Cdl. Burke: The members of both sessions of the Synod voted on certain propositions. The results of the votes have been published. The text of Amoris Laetitia is based on what happened at the two sessions, but it cannot be said that the teaching contained in it is the teaching of the members of the Synod. The Synod of Bishops gives consultation to the Pope. What he publishes is his teaching.

Katolikus Válasz: Many of us have an understanding that even though Amoris Laetitia (especially its 8th chapter dealing with the issue of irregular matrimonial unions) contains ambiguous statements that are open for heterodox interpretations, nevertheless even these statements (and Amoris Laetitia as a whole) can be understood as being completely in line with the previous teaching of the Magisterium. Thus, it is not Amoris Laetitia but the interpretations provided by individual bishops and episcopal conferences that are erroneous and contradictory in some points they make. Do you agree with this understanding of the situation?

If so, why are you suggesting a formal correction of the Pope, instead of formal corrections of these bishops and episcopal conferences?

Cdl. Burke: The fact that certain passages in Amoris Laetitia have given way to confused and contradictory interpretations is a difficulty in itself. There are passages which, in fact, call into question certain fundamental teachings of the Church and thus have generated contradictory understandings of the Church’s teaching on the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and on acts which are intrinsically evil and, therefore, can never be justified. Since the Petrine Office has the responsibility to teach the Catholic faith with integrity and thus maintain the unity of the Bishops and all the faithful, the correction of the confusion and error is the responsibility of the Roman Pontiff. That is why the dubia or questions were respectfully directed to Pope Francis as an aid to him in carrying out his weighty responsibility. To provide such assistance to the Holy Father is at the heart of the responsibility of the College of Cardinals. (posting the rest separately - over the limit)

 

[oppositeman13]

article continued

Katolikus Válasz: In your recent interview with The Wanderer you claim that “the Holy Father would be obliged to respond” to a possible formal declaration of correction. What do you exactly mean by this?

Do you expect other bishops and cardinals to openly sign such a declaration with the dubia cardinals?

Cdl. Burke: Since a formal correction would treat a fundamental teaching or fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith, it would require the Pope to fulfill his solemn duty to teach what the Catholic Church has always taught and practiced.

I cannot say what other Bishops and Cardinals may do. Regarding the formal correction, it is not a matter of the number of persons who make the correction but of the truth of the correction itself.

Katolikus Válasz: In his recent article, Abp. Víctor Manuel Fernández - quite clearly referring to the dubia cardinals - accused the Pope’s critics with “intellectual Pelagianism”, and with preparing “a death trap”: a system of arguments “by an oligarchic group of ethicists” in which “the Scriptures are only there to illustrate the logic”. According to the archbishop, “it is far easier to apply black-and-white norms, without taking into account complex realities and concrete lives, but ‘that comfortable rigidity can be a betrayal of the heart of the Gospel.’"

How would you respond to these statements?

Cdl. Burke: The question is what truth did Our Lord Himself teach in the Gospel and what has the Church always taught, in fidelity to the Word of Christ. That truth and living according to that truth alone will make individual Christians free and happy. Acting in a way contrary to that truth not only does not bring freedom and happiness but can also cause others to fall into error. Encouraging another to act in a way contrary to that truth is not a sign of Christian love and compassion which require each of us to help each other, even in complex and difficult situations, to respond to grace and so to live the truth.

 

[JimG]

Geocentric cosmology was never a principle of moral theology or even of doctrinal theology. What’s defined as usury depends on whether money is a non-productive or a productive item. The prohibition on divorce comes from the words of Christ.

If current circumstances decide morality, then there is no morality, only personal preferences which are in favor at any given time.

 

[Rau]

Communion may never be received by those who are in a state of objective mortal sin (which is not the same as being culpable for the objective sin).

Has a person lost sanctifying grace in this state?

 

[Vadne]

Oh for the days when there was still a sense of scandal and not one of reinventing the wheel because oh how finally Francis has taught the meaning of “mercy” that those mean popes before him didn’t.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I do not know which statement you speak of. Can you be more specific?

 

[pnewton]

As far as I am concerned all this is just situational ethics dressed up with “word gymnastics”

LOL. I feel the same way about quantum physics. I understand that those who are not moral theologians may not understand how this differs from situational ethics, at least the way that phrase is used by modern humanists. On the other hand, “situation” is the setting of ethics. Our limited understanding of the situation of the soul is precisely why we are forbidden from judging the state of the soul of another.

 

[pnewton]

l and not one of reinventing the wheel because oh how finally Francis has taught the meaning of “mercy” that those mean popes before him didn’t.

Sarcasm + straw man = the language of the world, not the language of charity.

I appreciate those who have approached this topic, even though they are bothered by it, the way the Church does. On the internet it is particular difficult to avoid the shock jock mentality. Toxic language will accomplish nothing but a brief personal catharsis, at best.

 

[Rau]

I do not know which statement you speak of. Can you be more specific?

The para on my mind is 303. It as well as 302 and 304 gave rise to the Dubia questions (5, 4, 2) which go to the apparent inconsistency with Veritatis Splendor and in particular the teaching concerning intrinsic evil.

 

[pnewton]

In that case, I think the answer is simple. Nothing in the document says that God wants anyone continuing in a sinful relationship. In fact, I think it a pretty simply universal that God never wants us to commit any sin.

The one thing in those paragraphs that I might see something new, but not contradictory, is incorporating the role of conscience into Catholic practices. However, I would note that this is not totally new, and in fact St. Paul alluded to self-examination in at least one place. What is not contained in those paragraphs though are change in doctrine or permission to sin.

 

[BlackFriar]

Geocentric cosmology was never a principle of moral theology or even of doctrinal theology.

Your concern was:

So, once a previously prohibited practice becomes sufficiently widespread, moral theology finds a way to justify it?

The issue is how moral theology is restated to accommodate now accepted practices and views.

Your “new” theological definition of Usury above is a good example of what I mean.

What’s defined as usury depends on whether money is a non-productive or a productive item

In fact the OT was nowhere near so nuanced:

Dt 23:20
“You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest.”
Pretty black and white.

The Church apparently persecuted Jews for charging interest on loans up until the early Middle Ages.
Then when the Church became wealthy and Catholic merchants started imitating exactly the same practices that Jews had formerly been persecuted for the theologians realised things were more nuanced than previously considered. Its a pity that realisation didn’t come sooner for the Jews.

Ditto Galileo I believe.
It was the common opinion of leading Churchmen up until that time that the inerrancy of Scripture stood or fell by a geocentric cosmology. Especially St Robert Bellarmine. They were mistaken.

The same is being said of even graced irregulars and worthy reception of Communion.
It may be, it may not be.
Like the necessity of Geocentrism to defend Catholic Faith in Biblical Inerrancy…it may be a mistaken judgement and an error of our Age that Pope Francis is correcting.

Its too early to tell yet, but it is certainly reasonable to hold this hypothesis which Pope Francis at least clearly holds.

The prohibition on divorce comes from the words of Christ.

Agreed. The state of divorce, whether victim or perpetrator, is objectively sinful as is civil remarriage or cohabitation. All such states contradict Jesus’s teaching on indissolubility and the meaning and sacrament of marriage.
While confession may forgive culpability (if there was any) for divorce it does not remove the objectively sinful state which remains so long as the legal divorce remains in place. Separation “from bed and board” on the grounds of adultery is not objectively sinful, but divorce is.

Nevertheless I believe the Church requires a petitioner to the Marriage Tribunal to obtain a civil divorce before it will consider an annulment hearing.

This would seem to be another example of how a gravely disordered objective state is not intrinsically linked with denial of Communion or unworthiness to receive Communion.

 

[BlackFriar]

Can you source a Magisterial source for this?
I am aware of JPII’s ambiguous statement that sounds like this in FS - but even he allowed of exceptions.
(Public civil remarriage is an objectively grave matter yet he allowed Communion if abstaining from sex).

Do you have anything else that would indicate a strong Magisterial tradition for this view?

I am also aware of the Confessor’s Vademecum which allows Confessors to temporarily overlook the objective sins of contraceptors and give them absolution - thus allowing those in a state of grave objective sin to receive Communion.

So your statement would not appear to be without exceptions.

 

[Rau]

In that case, I think the answer is simple. Nothing in the document says that God wants anyone continuing in a sinful relationship. In fact, I think it a pretty simply universal that God never wants us to commit any sin.

The one thing in those paragraphs that I might see something new, but not contradictory, is incorporating the role of conscience into Catholic practices. However, I would note that this is not totally new, and in fact St. Paul alluded to self-examination in at least one place. What is not contained in those paragraphs though are change in doctrine or permission to sin.

I’d be very interested to read - from anyone - how the Dubia ought to be answered, and with sufficient explanation to address the concerns raised. Clearly, the Pope did not write in AL: - “Look, sometimes we just have to sin, so carry on”, and I think to note that and then conclude “the answer is simple, move on, nothing to see here” is an inadequate response, and tends to overlook the fact that 4 Cardinals, after months of thinking, fail to resolve the apparent conflicts. I think the situation is that responses to the Dubia (and I mean beyond Yes/No) are not yet available.

 

[Vadne]

This entire mess was unnecessary, and the fault lies with Amoris Laetitia…which I have read. For starters, it is an incredibly boring document, full of the verbiage that plagues many Vatican documents of more recent vintage. The verbiage makes it easy to craft ambiguities and over generalizations. It is not a precise document. It lacks clarity. When four cardinals…between them with considerable experience in moral theology and related fields…have serious questions about a document (something really unprecedented), the problem isn’t with the nasty, unmerciful cardinals, it’s with the document and its notorious footnotes.

The pope could easily resolve all this, simply by answering the very clear and precise dubia. He has preferred not to reply, which is his privilege. But history will not look kindly on the amazing contradiction of a pontificate that preaches mercy and free speech, and yet has demonstrably been one of the most authoritarian and ultramontane in recent memory.

 

[oppositeman13]

it seems the questions have been answered here - https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-schonborn-dubia-questions-can-answered-yes/

 

[BlackFriar]

Clearly, the Pope did not write: - “Look, sometimes we just have to sin, so carry on”,

Is it clear…perhaps not.
We have already agreed above that there is objective sin and there is personal sin (culpable sin) as per Vadne above:

Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT? Catholic News

Communion may never be received by those who are in a state of objective mortal sin (which is not the same as being culpable for the objective sin). Most Catholics understood that basic tenet of moral theology until Amoris Laetitia opened the door to wildly divergent interpretations. The pope could end this mess…but while he has time to insult traditional Catholics regularly, he has not had time to address this crisis.

.

It seems to me Pope Francis is clearly saying something very close to what you deny above.
He does seem to be saying, “Look, sometimes we just get caught up in objectively sinful situations which it would be personally sinful to quickly exit from so we just have to carry on until opportune conditions arise to fix things.”

 

[Rau]

It seems to me Pope Francis is clearly saying something very close to what you deny above.

He does seem to be saying, “Look, sometimes we just get caught up in objectively sinful situations which it would be personally sinful to quickly exit from so we just have to carry on until opportune conditions arise to fix things.”

The two statements (though what you attribute to me is really pnewton’s contribution rephrased by me) are - as you say - slightly different (as I was referring to personal sin, like pnewton), and the situation as you describe it does bear thinking about. What a path the accompanying priest is expected to navigate.

 

[Pug]

You gave some paragraph numbers above. I’d like help with these:

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

It [conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

Without further sin bothers me and so does it is what God himself is asking. Perhaps what is simply meant is that the conscience is not fully formed, so it is confounded, and the phrases are not talking about truth, just some type of falsely perceived concept. So the person, according to their conscience, cannot do the action because they honesty think it would be a sin. So they cannot stop having relations without truly sinning, as they see it. But then again, this is just a polite supposition on my part that AL means this. I don’t know what it means. Maybe it does intend to say that God asks the person to keep having relations.

 

[JimG]

it seems the questions have been answered here - Cardinal Schönborn: "All the [Dubia] Questions Can Be Answered 'Yes'" - OnePeterFive

That link was certainly enlightening, at least to me. If the dubia questions can all be answered yes, the only one which would trouble me is the “yes” to the first question—that the sexually active divorced and remarried can indeed receive reconciliation and communion without changing their practice. It seems to me that a “yes” answer here opens the gates of relativism to all of moral theology. Probably because giving a straightforward answer to that one question would cause an immediate upheaval in the hierarchy, the dubia will never be answered.

The remarks given about same sex unions and cohabitation are also troubling.