Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

[oppositeman13]

I don’t think it will be answered directly by the pope - and I think cardinal burke will pursue the formal correction - strange that 3 of the dubia cardinals have died recently - I don’t know that you read what I posted above - a interview a few days ago with cardinal burke about the dubia - but it is not far above if you care to read it.

 

[pnewton]

and I think cardinal burke will pursue the formal correction - strange that 3 of the dubia cardinals have died recently

Such things are in the hands of God.

 

[pnewton]

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.

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

Do absolute moral norms still exist?
Does objective grave sin still exist?
Is the teaching still valid that however much circumstances may lessen an individual’s guilt, those circumstances cannot change an intrinsically evil act into a subjectively good act?

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 first question would depend on whether “divorced and remarried” refers to legally, in the eyes of the Church, or in the eyes of God, that is reality. Also, “without a change of life” may mean more than one thing.

What a path the accompanying priest is expected to navigate.

Exactly. I am sure Pope Francis is aware of what he is asking of the priests.

 

[BlackFriar]

The point i think Pope Francis is making is materially just what you denied of him.
Sometimes we do have to sin and have no freedom of choice but to do so.

The difficulty for some is that this type of sinning is alone barring of Communion.

 

[BlackFriar]

I believe it means what Rau and I are discussing here:

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

The point i think Pope Francis is making is materially just what you denied of him. Sometimes we do have to sin and have no freedom of choice but to do so. The difficulty for some is that this type of sinning is alone barring of Communion.

Two notable examples are:

1. FI and the irregular who would be sinning by choosing to abandon a 2nd happy and stable marriage when the first marriage is irreconcilable and the partner and children would be put into dire straights by doing so.
2. BXII and the hiv prostitute who does not yet have the moral freedom to leave is objectively sinful employment but does have the freedom to rightly choose to use condoms in this context to protect others from the consequences of his lack of freedom.

Traditional objective moral analysis does not cope well with analysing these sorts of mixed scenarios.
I believe it is because it rarely has anything to say re secondary objective sinfulness once a primary line of grave objective sinfulness has been crossed. You have already left the barque of Peter and are on your own recogniscance as it were.

But Pope Francis is not afraid to see Christs grace still operating in these sinners…and many are still in sanctifying grace. They are therefore not virtual excommunicants but members of the flock who need to be brought back to the bosom of the Church when their actual status is discerned as such.
Nothing too onerous here for a compassionate and experienced pastor.

I think this view of things has some merit.

 

[BlackFriar]

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.

I have myself never seen this baldly stated by FI or his minders.
Just because one is not free at this time in my life to effect the changes I know God and the Church and my own conscience require of me does not mean I do not have remorse or the abiding intention of interior will to do so should that freedom be one day forthcoming.

So really, it has been answered.
Whether some Canon Lawyers accept it in this context is another matter.

This is the principle of the law of gradualness that is constantly brought before us to consider.
It does have merit, it is a standard principle of Aquinas’s philosophy of human nature.

 

[oppositeman13]

It seems to me sinning is always a choice we make - no one can make us sin - at worst you give up your physical life. I believe there is never a reason to commit a sin - gray area doesn’t exist with God.

 

[Vadne]

Sinning is ALWAYS a choice.

 

[pnewton]

It seems to me sinning is always a choice we make -

But what kind of choice is it? It is a choice to do something that is wrong. No one can “accidentally” sin if sin is a choice. The contrapositive to sinning is a choice is that which was not a choice was not sin. Both are true, or neither are true.

 

[BlackFriar]

I believe the Churchs perennial teaching on the two modes of entering states of mortal sin (by commission and by contraction) would suggest this may not be the case.

Aquinas also spend a lot of time distinguishing culpable sinfulness (malum culpae) from nonculpable sinfulness (malum poenae).

As do all tradtional Moral Theology manuals.

There seems to be significant gray areas, though perhaps not for trained theologians.

So yes it seems we can be made to sin…but this sin is not always culpable.
Think divorce, think original sin. These are contracted from the culpable sin of others.

“Choice” is an interesting english word. It has many degrees.
The sort of choice needed to sin gravely and culpably in Latin is a very specfic word usually translated along the lines of “full intent” or “full volition” or “committed”.
In Latin other words are used when a person is not fully free.

It would seem the “choice” of some peoples who repent of their 2nd marriage but “choose” to remain in that objective evil is not of the primary variety of “choice”.

 

[BlackFriar]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged

I believe you will find the Church has always held that the state of divorce, like a 2nd cohabitation or marriage, is objectively sinful as it publicly contradicts Jesus teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the purpose and signification of the sacrament. Both are abiding objective counter witnesses to that teaching.

Clearly, like babies and original sin, one can be dragged innocently into that sort of sinfulness by one’s partner.
Jesus himself said the same re adultery from my reading of one of the Gospels.

Civil Divorce is not as serious as civil remarriage but it is still objectively serious.
Traditionally the only licit solution to a de facto failed marriage was separation of bed and board.

 

[JimG]

I believe you will find the Church has always held that the state of divorce, like a 2nd cohabitation or marriage, is objectively sinful as it publicly contradicts Jesus teaching on the indissolubility of marriage

But the Church does not recognize that civil divorce ends a valid marriage, so how could it consider sinful a civil action that has no effect on a marriage? A civil divorce, from the Church’s viewpoint, is nothing more than a separation, often pending a determination as to nullity.

 

[Pug]

Your two examples show a person who is responding to some of the moral law, but perhaps not to others, or not in a fully balanced way. “Do no harm to another” is calling to the person in each case to some extent. I agree that the folks under consideration are members of the flock who need the care of the Church.

The topic inclines one to wonder if believers are given the grace to avoid objective mortal sin, or only the grace to avoid subjective mortal sin, something that I have never thought to put into words before.

 

[BlackFriar]

Search on divorce in the CCC. It occurs 17 times.
If you cannot find the quotes I precised let me know and I will put them up for analysis.

How quickly we lay people forget the attitude and common teachings of past generations.
In the nineteenth century it seems the Church was as vociferous and staunch against the illicitness of goverments legislating for civil divorce as it recently is or was for allowing civil unions and abortion and the decriminalisation of sodomy.

Now the “plague” of divorce amongst Catholics is tolerated for a good reason where once it was considered beyond the pale and gravely illicit under any circumstance.

The reaction against AL does appear to be the same played out drama with different content.
Just as with circumcision, usury, slavery, soldiering, traditores, Biblical innerrancy etc in the past.
Such changes and confusion are normal and painful in any age it seems to me.

 

[BlackFriar]

The topic inclines one to wonder if believers are given the grace to avoid objective mortal sin, or only the grace to avoid subjective mortal sin, something that I have never thought to put into words before.

Thats an insightful observation.
I have always assumed it is the second one myself now that I reflect on it.

I have never found it convincing that sincere Catholic teenage boys with raging hormones fall in and out of culpable mortal sin every 2 or 3 weeks even when regularly going to confession. Yes they are falling in and out of a state of objective mortal sin but surely it is reasonable to assume sanctifying grace abides despite this.

I think lifelong freedom from objective mortal sin is not a normal grace to be expected of God.
I personally have met nobody I would have reasonable grounds for believing this of.

However I have met a few people I believe have always preserved their personal dedication to God within the limits of their upbringing, circumstances and educational limitations and have never harboured grave malice against God or man.

I sometimes wonder if Princess Diana, despite all her venalities and grave objective failures, could be such a one also.

 

[JimG]

It’s true that the Church fought against liberalized divorce laws. When I was young, divorce was rare, and it did carry a stigma. Annulments were also rare and not routinely granted. My wife’s aunt was denied an annulment after being abandoned by her husband. In those days, apparently the thinking was that if both parties said the vows before each other and the priest and the Church, it was taken for granted that they meant what they said. And if they meant what they said in the vows, the marriage was unbreakable. 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.

So is the huge number of decrees of nullity today an improvement over that, or does it come too close to “Catholic divorce?” Is it that case that moral theology must now accommodate itself to the increased numbers of divorces? And will the same apply when same sex marriage reaches a large enough tilting point?

 

[Pug]

I have always assumed it is the second one myself now that I reflect on it.

I think mostly I have assumed the first one, myself, not the latter, even though I am familiar with the teen behavior of which you speak. Now, hmmm. My one thought now is that I would like take comfort with Jesus’ words:

For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.

 

[Rau]

Sometimes we do have to sin and have no freedom of choice but to do so.

Being caught between a rock and a hard place does not sound like a novel idea. Has it never been examined in the annals of moral theology? Is it beyond the capacity of the pope and bishops to explain; beyond the capacity of other bishops to understand?

 

[runningdude]

Does not seem to understand what discernment is. In the article Cardinal Burke explains it by saying discernment does not decide what is right or wrong.

“Discernment does not decide what is right or wrong but leads the person to inform himself as fully as possible,” continued Cardinal Burke, “so that he can make a right judgment in a particular matter, that is, so that he can act in accord with the truth which God has written upon his heart or conscience.”

It is a Catholic requirement to develop one’s conscience, so as to find God’s will. Discernment is the use of one’s conscience as a tool to uncover the truth, not make (“decide”) a truth for oneself.

An “adolescent” spirituality is immature, and wants easy answers. An “adult” spirituality accepts that some difficult truths must be assented to in humble obedience.

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” – John 18:37

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Sometimes we do have to sin and have no freedom of choice but to do so.

Being caught between a rock and a hard place does not sound like a novel idea. Has it never been examined in the annals of moral theology? Is it beyond the capacity of the pope and bishops to explain; beyond the capacity of other bishops to understand?

Being caught between a rock and a hard place does not sound like a novel idea.

I don’t believe this phraseology really does justice to what we are discussing as it suggests the issue is not freedom of choice but an issue of courage and confusion over which is the better (or less worse) choice.

What I believe we/you have raised here is an objectively grave “state” which one accepts cannot be currently exited, though one newly discovers it should be, as to do so freely would be culpably sinful. There is no confusion as to what is the morally correct choice here. Nor is the correct choice onerus (one is afterall choosing to keep things as they are). However there is a loving awareness of an ongoing grave disharmony before God that needs to be rectified.,but one is not yet free to. I suppose that is a burden for those who truly love God, though a light one for those who believe they are doing God’s will by not yet remedying the grave situation.

A strange contradiction to be sure.

I have never seen this type of conundrum clearly raised before the 1980s.I think JPII was grappling with it in FS re Communion for abstainers…a huge innovation at the time which few people seem to object to here

Perhaps this moral conundrum is only coming to the fore now because of the historically new situation of high numbers of divorced, remarried and annulled couples in the heart of the Church as @jimG observes.

Whether it deserves banning from Communion I don’t know.
What does seem apparent to me is it doesn’t seem intrinsically demanded of the objective irregular situation alone.