Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

[Rau]

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….

I suppose that depends on what a firm intent to live as “brother and sister” constitutes. It is a move to the better course when it is mutual. It is complicated when adverse consequences follow.

 

[JimG]

I had to chuckle at your mention of giving condoms to a 17 year old daughter, because it reminded me of another incident from my high school days. A priest giving a talk to a class told us of an incident in which a boy had been killed in a car crash on his way to pick up his date. “A condom was found in the boy’s wallet,” he said, and then told us solemnly, “that boy is in hell today.” Because he had the intent to commit fornication.
Of course I took his words as hyperbole, because even a high school kid knows that only God can judge the state of someone’s soul. But he wanted to make a point. By intending to sin, one has already given consent to the deed.

As to my wife’s aunt, she firmly accepted the finding of the tribunal and did not wish to second guess them. I got the impression that she believed the first marriage to be valid, because she meant her vows and she believed that the ex-husband meant them as well. He just changed his mind. But changing one’s mind does not dissolve a marriage. In any case she remained a devout Catholic whether receiving communion or not.

 

[BlackFriar]

I did not mention abstaining because it seems extraneous to JPIIs analysis on this point.
It appeared the better choice to remain regardless of ant intention to abstain or not.
It is still an unsettled issue, he simply stated Communion was not possible if they did not abstain I believe.

Strange that a Pope believed it is better to stay and burn contradicting age old advice on occassions of sin and St Paul. … unless of course leaving is even greater sin.

That is likely why JPIIs novel resolution to this issue in FS remains problematic despite its scandalous leniency at the time.

 

[irenaeus1]

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’”

I don’t trust Cardinal Schönborn’s answer on this… or I can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps he misread the question.

 

[irenaeus1]

But none as realistic as the divorced and remarried case.

Sure these examples are realistic… remember that it only has to refer to rare and exceptional cases. And considering the number of those running human sex trafficking operations and others in involved in organized crime, it may not even be a small number.

 

[irenaeus1]

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 the Church’s toleration does not have to include admittance to Holy Communion; otherwise, it is now no longer toleration, but sanctioning.

 

[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.

Also, the issue of using the children as an excuse to remain in an adulterous relationship is somewhat wanting. I have to continue cheating on my wife for the sake of the children doesn’t seem to have any ring of truth to it. What if the new union has no ‘new’ children. The divorced and remarried may often be a blended family (children from one or both of the previous unions); does that constitute a reasoning to maintain the adulterous union? What about if there are no children from the new union (and any children prior are grown), then what is the excuse now for them to remain in an illicit union?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t want to put everything down to a difference over meaning of terms, but there may be some squishiness in the way the terms are defined. I know there are real differences, but when we consider what marriage is, there are at least three definitions I can think of off the top of my head. We have civil marriage, marriage recognized by the Church, marriage recognized by God.

 

[Rau]

It appeared the better choice to remain regardless of ant intention to abstain or not.

If there are children, perhaps of this new union, there are multiple courses of action:

• split up adversely affecting children;
• remain together living as husband and wife;
• remain together living as brother and sister;

Further consideration arises if only 1 partner will accept the last option.

I don’t think JP canvasses the option of splitting up eg to identify when that should be preferred. JP II drew a distinction between (2) and (3); Francis I believe would concur with that, but more finely distinguishes scenarios involving various impediments to (3). So there is a sense in which each evolves the analysis. It’s reasonable to presume such progression must encounter limits, and the debate seems to be about how the limit is identified.

I would be interested in reading the following if available:

• a Church statement in the period prior to FC that said communion is not available to the divorced (no annulment) and remarried (no exceptions);
• negative reactions of the episcopate at the time to the allowance made in FC.

 

[Rau]

Also, the issue of using the children as an excuse to remain in an adulterous relationship is somewhat wanting. I have to continue cheating on my wife for the sake of the children doesn’t seem to have any ring of truth to it.

I think you are waving away the complexities and the impact on other innocents.

What if the new union has no ‘new’ children.

Then that is one less concern.

The divorced and remarried may often be a blended family (children from one or both of the previous unions); does that constitute a reasoning to maintain the adulterous union? What about if there are no children from the new union (and any children prior are grown), then what is the excuse now for them to remain in an illicit union?

Who has said they must remain sexually active in the union or that it is ok to remain so in one of these cases? The proposition is that there be a process of discernment according to all the relevant factors. I am the first to point out that guidelines are largely absent and the mission of the accompanying priest seems fraught.

 

[irenaeus1]

I don’t want to put everything down to a difference over meaning of terms, but there may be some squishiness in the way the terms are defined. I know there are real differences, but when we consider what marriage is, there are at least three definitions I can think of off the top of my head. We have civil marriage, marriage recognized by the Church, marriage recognized by God.

Dubia question 1 is referring to a “valid marriage bond”… not a presumed valid marriage bond, nor a marriage that is presumed invalid or determined to be invalid. The question is: has it now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together without abstaining from conjugal relations which are proper to marriage. The answer should be a resounding “No.”

 

[pnewton]

he question is: has it now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond,

There still remains the issue of knowing that there is a valid marital bond. The Catholic Church presumes this, but presumption is prudential, not mandated by doctrine. For example, prior to an annulment a couple does not receive communion, even when there is no valid marital bond.

Second, I think the reason they do not receive communion needs to be considered. It is not just a rule. Is it not because of the state of the soul? What if there is no actual mortal sin, or no sin at all?

Yes, this can happen. Specifically, take the case where a person in another faith divorces because of spousal adultery. This is considered acceptable in most denominations. Now, that person remarries in full accord with their religious belief. That person may well be in a second marriage, what is considered objectively adultery with out the slightest bit of sin imputed to him or her.

We could make it stickier by making the person who was baptized Catholic but grew up and raised in another faith, then was wanting to come back home. It is still possible that there was no more awareness of sin being committed than having a bacon sandwich.

 

[irenaeus1]

irenaeus1:
The divorced and remarried may often be a blended family (children from one or both of the previous unions); does that constitute a reasoning to maintain the adulterous union? What about if there are no children from the new union (and any children prior are grown), then what is the excuse now for them to remain in an illicit union?

Who has said they must remain sexually active in the union or that it is ok to remain so in one of these cases? The proposition is that there be a process of discernment according to all the relevant factors. I am the first to point out that guidelines are largely absent and the mission of the accompanying priest seems fraught.

AL apparently does. The issue with children was just one example given in AL as a potential reason… after it tried to bolster its case by stealing a line from Gaudium et Spes that is actually to be applied to the struggle of married couples and their intimacy when faithfully engaging in the marital act or abstaining from such act for the spacing of children.

 

[irenaeus1]

irenaeus1:

Also, the issue of using the children as an excuse to remain in an adulterous relationship is somewhat wanting. I have to continue cheating on my wife for the sake of the children doesn’t seem to have any ring of truth to it.

I think you are waving away the complexities and the impact on other innocents.

But think about it… if I was simply having an affair that resulted in a ‘love child’, I am now in a similar dilemma as well. Can I leave my wife and maintain my adulterous relationship due to some complexities and the impact on other innocents? How does getting a permission slip from the State (i.e., a marriage license) suddenly make this a morally equivalent option?

 

[irenaeus1]

But Jesus didn’t say that the Pharisees were excused based on their religious belief (e.g., whether one belonged to the more conservative school where one could divorce his wife only in the case of unfaithfulness versus the more liberal school where one was permitted to divorce his wife if she simply burned his dinner). Regardless, Jesus said that to divorce and remarry was adultery.

Regarding the discernment of whether a marriage is valid is not germane to the dubia. The dubia states the condition that a valid marriage bond exists as the basis of the question, so the answer should be so based. That’s like asking the question: has it now become possible to state that a man and a woman bound by a valid marital bond is bound to their spouse until death (i.e., the marital bond is indissoluble), and saying that, well, it depends on whether they are validly married.

 

[pnewton]

I think this is a good analogy, though there are still differences. The one thing that Amoris Laetitia warns against is viewing people as categories. This is kind of the whole point of pastoral discernment. There was never an attempt to change moral law, deny moral law or re-categorize people. What I got from the document is that there are some cases the rules just don’t seem to fit. It is like Jesus’ disciples plucking grain is not what Sabbath law was meant to address. Or the moral principal that it is appointed to man once to die did not have to apply to Elijah.

Regardless, Jesus said that to divorce and remarry was adultery.

Yes it is, but it may not be sin. Sin requires a choice. One cannot accidentally sin. An interesting point about that verse though. The way the language is worded, it is the act or re-marriage that is an act of adultery, not a continuing act. The latter came from Catholic teaching. This is why a other denominations, even when they believe a re-marriage is adultery, view it as a single forgivable sin and not a state of adultery. But that is really not germane to this issue.

I have little doubt the Patriarch Jacob, David and other adulterers from the OT will be in Heaven. Mortal sin, that which separates from God and makes us unworthy to approach the altar, requires an act of the will.

 

[BlackFriar]

a Church statement in the period prior to FC that said communion is not available to the divorced (no annulment) and remarried (no exceptions);

Given it has been a discipline documented since C3 I am sure you will find plenty with a .ittle fossiking.
Try Denzinger.

 

[irenaeus1]

pnewton – I get what you are saying; I really do. But I have tremendous difficulty getting my head around this issue – logically, theologically, morally. I get the whole approach regarding culpability and mortal sin (although I do think many people place such a high standard to meet, one would think it’s virtually impossible to commit a mortal sin). I don’t believe it is all that difficult, especially considering that God’s law is written on the heart of man. Rarely do we not know deep down what is right and wrong. And rarely are we acting without giving consent to act. And I can even read AL to sound orthodox if I try hard enough. But the proof is in the heretical implementation and the erroneous declarations that have come out from a number of priests and bishops as a direct result of AL who seem emboldened that this pope would never rein them in even if the pope does not agree with them.

This coupled with the fact that numerous scholars, priests, bishops and cardinals also have a problem with the interpretation and implementation of AL. What’s more, the dividing line, in general, seems quite clear; those who support the more radical interpretation and implementation of AL are those who are on record playing fast and loose with other Church teachings, while those who are more vocal in their resistance to AL are those who are known to be brilliant scholars and champions of orthodoxy in other arenas. This pattern is unmistakable.

 

[BlackFriar]

Would you say that civil divorce by Catholics is sanctioned now?
I dont think so.

 

[BW1980]

Well on the one hand we have divorced and “remarried” people who weren’t capable of understanding the very simple words of the sacrament. Nobody is culpable for anything because we cannot figure it out. It’s too hard to live the faith. But we are all adults who should be making all judgements on the basis our consciences? We don’t need scripture or priests or prelates or Christ or the Bible: we can all decide what’s right for us.

Guess Cupich doesn’t want a job.