Cardinal Muller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[JPUSC]

The Pope teaches God’s word infallibly only when he exercises his office “ex cathedra” in a formal definition that binds all Catholics to assent to a particular belief in order for one to call themselves Catholic. This is the Doctrine of Infallibility, and doesn’t extend to airplane interviews, personal opinions or vague footnotes that can be interpreted in ten contradictory ways. That’s not criticism of this Pope or any other, it’s Catholic Doctrine.

Interestingly, the Pope indeed does quote himself from his speeches in Amoris Laetitia consequently making some of these personal opinions fall under the ordinary magisterium.

 

[Stat_Crux]

That is a reasonable observation.

It is also interesting to note that it is not only publicly known sexual activity that may prohibit public Communion. Both the 2nd civil marriage and/or Cohabitation does as well…though the gravity appears mitigatable to some extent. That is, cohabitation by itself allows for anonymous Communion if it is reasonably demonstrated that the objective goods gained outweigh this objective evil.

Which suggests the bann re the presence of sexual activity might allow of exceptions too, though obviously rarer. I suppose the conclusion would be that if granted the Communion would also need to be anonymous.

They are not the same thing, as Familiaris Consortio and the 1994 CDF letter both explain.

Being in a civil marriage whilst validly married to another is not a good thing which is promoted. However, given the potential involvement of children or others who may be economically dependent on the new civil union, there may be cases in which they can’t separate. However, like all people who are not validly married to one another, they are obliged to remain chaste “as brother and sister” and refrain from sexual activity. In that case the Church views the couple as two unmarried adults who co-operate to raise children in a stable environment, but without breaking their moral responsibilities. To that end, they may receive Communion away from the public gaze to avoid scandalising the faithful who may be mislead into thinking they do live as husband and wife, sex and all, or that the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is not true.

Your proposed interpretation of AL seems to do away with that, and suggests that couples who are not validly married may engage in sexual activity. The line that is crossed between this and the treatment under Familiaris Consortio 84 is that this new interpretation suggests the couple are no longer obliged to follow the Church’s moral teaching on sex outside of a valid marriage.

 

[Stat_Crux]

As a slight digression from the current position of the thread, I’ve just read the following in Veritatis Splendor which seems relevant to the Maltese guidelines:

1. Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

These different notions are at the origin of currents of thought which posit a radical opposition between moral law and conscience, and between nature and freedom.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Interestingly, the Pope indeed does quote himself from his speeches in Amoris Laetitia consequently making some of these personal opinions fall under the ordinary magisterium.

He does indeed. I do not pretend that it is absolutely clear cut what is and what is not magisterial. Nobody has claimed that about infallibility, even since the beginning. But if you’re suggesting that by quoting himself a Pope’s teachings become part of the ordinary magisterium and so are covered by infallibility, I’m not sure I’d agree. Pope Honorius I presumably said things in public and wrote documents that quoted himself, but he was still judged a heretic by his successor Popes because he was a Monothelite. Pope John XXII preached a very serious error with regards to the Beatific Vision in a series of public sermons, but was later convinced to recant his errors.

None of these historic instances should be used as justification to attack this Pope or any other, but they serve to remind us that we can never abdicate our free will to exercise judgement in this life. There is an objective truth which we should choose if we are to call ourselves Christian, but that does not mean there is nothing stopping us from choosing another path. Free will, properly exercised, also means full responsibility.

We must also remember that in paragraph 3 of Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis says “I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.”

I must also draw attention to your signature, which quite rightly says:

“Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.” Bishop Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent

 

[Thomas_White]

As a slight digression from the current position of the thread, I’ve just read the following in Veritatis Splendor which seems relevant to the Maltese guidelines:

It is for reasons such as this (re: comment #36) that I believe that AL should be understood as a "development of doctrine (as Cardinal Schonborn has said).

 

[JPUSC]

He does indeed. I do not pretend that it is absolutely clear cut what is and what is not magisterial. Nobody has claimed that about infallibility, even since the beginning. But if you’re suggesting that by quoting himself a Pope’s teachings become part of the ordinary magisterium and so are covered by infallibility, I’m not sure I’d agree. Pope Honorius I presumably said things in public and wrote documents that quoted himself, but he was still judged a heretic by his successor Popes because he was a Monothelite. Pope John XXII preached a very serious error with regards to the Beatific Vision in a series of public sermons, but was later convinced to recant his errors.

None of these historic instances should be used as justification to attack this Pope or any other, but they serve to remind us that we can never abdicate our free will to exercise judgement in this life. There is an objective truth which we should choose if we are to call ourselves Christian, but that does not mean there is nothing stopping us from choosing another path. Free will, properly exercised, also means full responsibility.

We must also remember that in paragraph 3 of Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis says “I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.”

I must also draw attention to your signature, which quite rightly says:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Lumen gentium 25]

ewtn.com/holysee/pontiff/categories.asp

An Apostolic Exhortation is published to encourage the faithful to live in a particular manner (greater conversion to Christ) or to do something of virtue. An Exhortation does not have the ability to change Church teaching de fide. The dogmatic teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption could not be communicated to the Church as de fide in this form. For example, a post-synodal document offered to the Church which is typically a summary of a previous synod and hoping the faithful will do something helpful for the life of the church (e.g., the new evangelization, go to confession, rely on St Joseph, the moral life, preparation for a special event in the Christian life). This level is of ordinary teaching authority.

communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2013/11/what-is-an-apostolic-exhortation

It’s never a new doctrine but rather one that has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus (Latin for everywhere, always and by all). In other words, when the pope reinforces, reiterates, or restates the consistent teaching of his predecessors and of the bishops united with him around the world, that’s considered the Ordinary Magisterium and should be treated as infallible doctrine…

Since Vatican II, however, the content and context of the document determine the degree of authority and not just the type of papal document. If the pope intends to definitively teach the universal Church on a matter of faith or morals, then he is expressing his supreme authority as head of the Church.

When John Paul II issued his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, he officially declared that the Catholic Church has no power to ordain women. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra papal statement, but it’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and thus, according to the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching is infallible…

Encyclicals are the routine, day-to-day, consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is equally infallible when it concerns faith and morals and reiterates the constant, consistent, and universal teaching of the popes and bishops. Their content requires religious submission of mind and will of faithful Catholics around the world.

So-called dissent from papal teaching in encyclicals isn’t part of Catholic belief. The Catholic faithful willfully conform to papal teaching and don’t dispute it.

dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/what-are-extraordinary-magisterium-and-ordinary-magisterium

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What I’m hearing here is that AL is too much for pastors and laity. And there is not necessarily anything in it that is wrong. As I read n. 303, I noticed that the precautions the Cardinal recommended using, whenever telling people to use their conscience in lieu of concrete directives or possibilities, are in fact there; 3 times in that one paragraph.

 

[FollowChrist34]

God bless - this takes an incredible amount of courage - more than most of us (at any level of the Church) possess. We need to support these four cardinals. And they are (1) within their rights, even obligation, here and (2) defending the integrity of the doctrine of the Church itself.

 

[Wandile]

It is for reasons such as this (re: comment #36) that I believe that AL should be understood as a "development of doctrine (as Cardinal Schonborn has said).

It can’t ever be a development of doctrine if AL teaches the divorced and remarried can receive communion as this would violate the council Trent which anathematised any such idea.

That’s why it’s crucial that the pope emphatically states that AL does not permit communion for divorced and remarried because if he says the opposite, he would be teaching heresy. And for those who don’t know, a pope who teaches error must not be followed.

Pope Innocent III († 1216):

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men. '” (Sermo 4)

Pope Adrian VI († 1523) :

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decree. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).”

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) The Pope under whose reign Papal Infalibility was dogmatized said :

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Pope Adrian II († 872);

“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches ( i.e., the patriarchs and bishops ), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings”.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Lots of solid references JPUSC! Good for you! I should point out I don’t think we disagree, but perhaps we need to discuss further to see why we agree.

I do not deny the supremacy of the Pope, nor would I defend such dissent. The section of Lumen gentium which you’re referring to makes reference to our duty of submission as Catholics before the Pope, acknowledgement of his office, and acceptance of his authority. However, his authority is not always infallibly exercised.

If we look in the next paragraph of Lumen gentium 25 immediately after that which you quoted, we see the following:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held…

…And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

Interestingly enough, I’d argue that Ordinatio sarcedotalis is infallible, as Pope John Paul II seems to be speaking ex cathedra (“from the chair”) when he says in paragraph 4:

I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Along similar lines when the Dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed in Munificentissimus Deus in 1950, which is viewed as the “classic” ex cathedra statement and says:

…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

It’s not to suggest we should only listen to Popes when they are speaking ex cathedra and otherwise ignore them (God forbid). But there are several famous examples of when Popes have taught quite silly things that are not quite in line with how we’d understand the Gospel today…

For example, in the Papal Bull Dum Diversas of Pope Nicholas V from 1452 we find an appeal to enslave “Saracens, Pagans, infidels and the enemies of Christ” in perpetual servitude:

…we grant to you full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude.

Or in Inter caetera of Pope Alexander VI from 1493 were we find a Pope supporting imperialism in the Americas:

…by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole

I don’t quote these controversial aspects of the Church’s history to unsettle you. But just to point out that while, yes, it is true that we owe enormous respect to the Pope and our support, we do not owe him a “blind” obedience.

St Paul states in Galations 2:11 that “when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”. He was not denying Peter his office, or his authority as the first Pope chosen by Christ. But instead admonishing Peter because his actions in refusing the eat with gentiles (non-Jews), were setting a bad example to those Christians who followed his lead as the head of the Church.

 

[JPUSC]

It is for reasons such as this (re: comment #36) that I believe that AL should be understood as a "development of doctrine (as Cardinal Schonborn has said).

“A Church that pays little attention to doctrine isn’t a more pastoral Church,” he said. “It’s a more ignorant Church.”

Caffarra also rejected the idea that what happened in Amoris is a “development” of doctrine, saying that a development is one thing and a contradiction is another.

“According to many bishops, it’s a contradiction, while many others say it’s a development,” he said. “That’s the reason we asked the pope.”

Crux, an independent Catholic media outlet, operated in partnership with the Knights of Columbus.
cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/01/14/cardinal-says-blind-man-deny-confusion-caused-pope

 

[graciew]

This is not the question, it is simply a way of presenting the issue so as not to have to address the questions being raised.

Ender

I used to wonder what for. Not any more.
It is more than obvious that these are heavy weights.
And at the end of the day,we have a priest,our Bishop and our Pope.
And our little everyday lives to live.
That is simple.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Crux, an independent Catholic media outlet, operated in partnership with the Knights of Columbus.

Crux is ok except for articles by Austen Ivereigh, which on the whole tend to be smug, poorly disguised attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. He seems to be one of the main cheerleaders for the “liberal” interpretation of AL in the UK, and recently seems to spend most of his time on his twitter account attacking those who support the traditional teaching of the Church and refusing to even acknowledge that it’s legitimately possible to have questions on AL.

Here is a classic example of his “accompaniment” of those who disagree with him:

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/11/anti-amoris-critics-cross-dissent-church-must-move/

 

[Ender]

… this new interpretation suggests the couple are no longer obliged to follow the Church’s moral teaching on sex outside of a valid marriage.

If your understanding is accurate then the issue is much broader, and would seem to include all sins, not merely sex outside of marriage.

The bar against receiving communion (before AL) was that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage were not simply sins, but sins that could not be forgiven because there was no intent to stop. Without contrition there can be no absolution - a condition that has not changed.

What, then, allows communion now? The couple no longer needs to have their “sins” forgiven because they have determined that they are not sins in the first place. The determination of what is or is not a sin is theirs to make, and if such a solution is valid in this particular case why should it not be valid generally for all sins? What is the argument that if a person may determine what is or is not a sin in one instance he is not equally free to make such a determination in other cases?

Ender

 

[JPUSC]

If your understanding is accurate then the issue is much broader, and would seem to include all sins, not merely sex outside of marriage.

Bingo.

 

[Thomas_White]

If your understanding is accurate then the issue is much broader, and would seem to include all sins, not merely sex outside of marriage.

The bar against receiving communion (before AL) was that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage were not simply sins, but sins that could not be forgiven because there was no intent to stop. Without contrition there can be no absolution - a condition that has not changed.ii

What, then, allows communion now? The couple no longer needs to have their “sins” forgiven because they have determined that they are not sins in the first place. The determination of what is or is not a sin is theirs to make, and if such a solution is valid in this particular case why should it not be valid generally for all sins? What is the argument that if a person may determine what is or is not a sin in one instance he is not equally free to make such a determination in other cases?

Ender

When I think too much about this, two things will come to mind. The first is that what others do is not my concern unless I make it so. The second is that ours in not to judge and each person will ultimately be judged by Christ. Then I find find peace.

 

[Origen52]

I finally decided to read Amoris laetitia today. I got to the third paragraph where the phrase “time is greater than space” caused me to do a double take and ask, “say what”. So I did some reading on what the heck that means, because for me space is greater than time since at the resurrection time will end, but our resurrected bodies will still take up space.

Anyway, my reading led to various explanations, from people who know their philosophy, and the consensus is that Pope Francis leans towards a Hegelian understanding of history and progress. It’s based on encouraging a dialect between opposing views which eventually leads to a synthesis which is superior to either original view, along the lines of the whole is greater than it’s parts. This caused me to suddenly understand his statements about creating a mess, stirring things up, etc. He believes that forcing orthodox Catholics to engage in debate with progressive Catholics will lead to deeper, more truthful understanding of Christianity.

I find it amusing that he is determined not to join in dialogue with these four Cardinals, since this would be a great dialectical exercise. Perhaps, like most things, Hegelian dialectic is easier in theory than in reality. But do not expect Pope Francis to settle down. He is keen on this approach and often it seems that he engages in both sides of the discussion.

I’d be interested in what others feel about this Hegelian approach to theological discussion.

 

[pnewton]

He believes that forcing orthodox Catholics to engage in debate with progressive Catholics will lead to deeper, more truthful understanding of Christianity.

Another interview. The cardinals who wrote the dubia sure are popular interview subjects. I wonder if Pope Francis foresaw a debate via the media.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That partner, going through whatever discernment process is now to be implemented, is cleared to receive communion. Would this couple now not qualify for a Catholic marriage? After all, if they can both receive the sacrament of communion it would seem there is no bar to them receiving the sacrament of marriage. On what grounds could they be denied?
Ender

Perhaps because current Tribunal rules require a stronger level of objective evidence for discovery against the first marriage than do PPs re discovery of grave sin against Communion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

what about this, blue, from the Catechism?

. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

I do not see the phrase “objective moral evil”…
As I say, it is theological goggeldygoop and I have never seen the expression used in a Magisterial statement.

“Moral evil”, being a free and knowing personal choice of “a physical evil” is of course always subjective and cannot be “objective” in the sense used here. Such usage suggests a slightly fuzzy understanding of what “moral evil” means.

On the other hand “the object of a moral act” or “the grave matter of a moral act” are standard and clear expositions of what I believe the really contributor means.