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

[collegeathlete]

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.

I think the question that must be asked is how well do these people know Pope Francis?

 

[pnewton]

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.

Read the title, which is repeated in the paragraph. This is about judging acts, what is done, which is matter and does not take into account culpability. This paragraph does not apply to what elements make mortal sin, only what acts are grave matter.

For example, cannibalism is and act that is always gravely evil. However, those who eat Soylent Green without knowing it is people do not incur mortal sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Agreed, some may not be in “adulterous” unions, as they may be living as brother and sister, in which case they commit no adultery.

Well it depends on what people mean when they colloquially speak of “adulterous unions” I suppose.
Westerners these days have an obsession with it being limited to sex. Yet the Church with a longer perspective still has objective issues simply with both cohabitation and 2nd civil marriages as in themselves objectively contradicting Jesus’s teaching on marriage and therefore a form of unfaithfulness still falling under the name “adulterous union”.
There are very different groups of adulterers as adultery is very differentiated in type…most Cardinals acknowledge this - as did Jesus who spoke of wives being made adulterers by their husbands…and that state may not have involved sex at all.

In any case I believe you understood well enough that I was referring to later convalidated unions. Prior to this discovery then there was no true adultery before God. And often enough informal moral certitude can be had on this matter by officials involved even if the robust formal objective evidence required by Tribunal judges is not.

I’m not sure I follow when you say “grind to a halt due to mere technical difficulties”. Are you perhaps referring to those cases when there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the marriage was invalid? In which case if there is insufficient objective evidence, how could anyone have any confidence that their original marriage was invalid if they have nothing to prove it?

It clearly is enough to see these alleged “adulterers” as far less confidently so and hence allows for well judged compassion re Communion until the high level of doubt is resolved either way.

Put it into another context; a criminal court. A man has been accused of a violent crime, but “due to mere technical difficulties” he is let off and walks free (e.g. there is no evidence). Is his “victim’s” family entitled to take the law into their own hands if they’re “subjectively convinced” that he is actually guilty?

That one would think this example could be analogous to the issue at hand is itself a concern.

Some rather glaring fails might be:
The Tribunal judges the status of the first marriage not the 2nd.
A negative finding merely continues the presumption of the presence of the bond in the first marriage, it does not prove it. Just as a “not guilty” finding re a murder charge does not mean the defendant is innocent.
It is not that there is no evidence, it is about the robustness of the evidence required to overturn a standing presumption in favour of the first marriage. A lower level of evidential proof required by a Communion judge to reach moral certainty does not contradict a higher level required by a marriage judge. Two different decisions are being made.
A decision about marriage status is of more import than that of Communion access by the same person.
As Pope Francis reminded us 2 years ago, unlike secular equivalents, Church Courts are meant to be headed by a Shepherd of souls not a Judge of souls.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Magisterial?

Veritatis Splendor by Pope St John Paul II, paragraph 75:

And paragraph 81 of the same:

So it seems the unusual phrase “objective moral evil” is not actually in the Magisterial sources you were summarising.

 

[EIF5A]

I’m still at a loss as to how learned men of theology and Church tradition can arrive at different conclusions.

 

[pnewton]

I found a link to the Maltese document.
ms.maltadiocese.org/WEBSITE/2017/PRESS%20RELEASES/Norms%20for%20the%20Application%20of%20Chapter%20VIII%20of%20AL.pdf

I can see why point 10 is causing concern. I have thought for the last year that communion *might *be allowed based on a person not being in a state of actual mortal sin, but not based on one’s conscience as out-lined in section 10. Also, I am concerned the the priest helping with the discernment in the internal forum is not more active in the decision. It is the belief of the person who is in the irregular situation that creates a right to the sacraments.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Magisterial?

Veritatis Splendor by Pope St John Paul II, paragraph 75:

And paragraph 81 of the same:

Well spotted, the phrase “objective moral evil” is indeed use there.
However it is not present in 81.

If we look at the sentence we have:
In [the teleological] view, deliberate consent to certain kinds of behaviour declared illicit by traditional moral theology would not imply an objective moral evil.

The context here is that Pope JPII is critiquing a mistaken view of Teleologist Catholic theologians.

Therefore it is not at all clear to me here that JPII is endorsing this phrase or simply countering the teleological view by borrowing expressions they use and throwing them back at them.

Are you aware of any other Magisterial usages of this phrase?
This does seem to be a bit of a cobbled together “one off” usage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The issue of Communion or no Communion, whilst obviously important, is actually a secondary consideration. In the situation you describe the couple avoid the sin of sacrilege in receiving Communion whilst knowingly being in a state of mortal sin. However, they still remain in a state of mortal sin because they engage in sexual activity whilst not married.

How can those irregulars who only sin venially be “in a state of mortal sin”?
What is your definition of such a state?

Or do you really mean “conscious of grave sin”…in which case those who are conscious they are engaged in sins of grave matter may not be conscious of sinning mortally.
As Pope Francis states they may not be without sanctifying grace.

The Church withholds Communion from those with unconfessed mortal sin…

You are mistaken I believe.
Canon 916 seem to leave it up to the individual to determine whether they have sinned mortally and whether to approach or not.
Canon 915 refers to a minister withholding Communion for “manifest grave sin”.
It says nothing of mortal sin or being in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What you say is true. However, refraining from communion while coping with a situation of sin can itself be a form of cooperation with grace.

I have often recounted the story of my wife’s aunt, whose first marriage ended quickly in abandonment. A tribunal denied her request for a declaration of nullity, finding (this was in the 1950’s) no defect in consent.

She later married civilly a good man in a civil union that lasted until death. He was not Catholic. She would not refuse him marital rights; neither would she reject the decision of the tribunal. She remained a weekly Mass attendee at her parish church, active in the parish, but refrained from communion.

Was that the right thing to do? I don’t know. Should she have appealed the tribunal decision? Maybe, but things were quite different then. The situation ultimately resolved itself when her husband became aged, ill, and impotent. She made a confession and returned to communion, her pastor being well aware of her situation. I simply think that her manner of coping with this may have been better than seeking a permission from her pastor to receive, despite her situatioin—a permission which she would have declined as questionable in any case.

I find it strange that some contributors raise scandal as a major reason for denying public Communion to irregulars even if they are not committing sacrilege due to likelihood of venial sin.

Yet when irregulars are confidentially resolved ( most are confidential) and the person starts receiving Communion the Parish is no more the wiser and so the same real scandal actually does come about from the resolution and no one in authority seems to mind.

I find that a deep flaw in the “scandal” argument.
If it was real these days anyone who is “fixed” should have that announced from the pulpit or in the newsletter so that scandal is avoided. Of course most of us would feel that is an invasion of privacy, the PP is the only one who needs to know.

But if that invasion principle is accepted, then how can the scandal argument hold for those few unknown “worthy venially sinning irregulars” that a PP might allow to Communion even though their marriage state is not “fixed”.

 

[Origen52]

I think the question that must be asked is how well do these people know Pope Francis?

They know philosophy and he didn’t invent the phrase, “time is more important than space”, you can start with this site. chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351301?eng=y

Search on Google and you will find a lot more, all written by philosophers who have read the Pope’s writings.

You can also do some reading on Hegel’s concept of time and space and compare the two yourself. You could start here theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/01/understanding-hegels-theory-on-time.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually the formal correction will cause a lot of shockwaves. Let’s hope it doesn’t go there. Because after a formal correction, the next accusation is heresy and deposition of the Pope (if a pope falls into formal heresy then he relinquishes the papacy and can be deposed).

I am aware of no person or group that has the authority from Christ to depose the Supreme Pontiff.
Do you?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m still at a loss as to how learned men of theology and Church tradition can arrive at different conclusions.

It has always been so surely.
As Aquinas says, principles are clear but application is not.
The further one descends into concrete detail the more fallible judgements become.

 

[pnewton]

I am aware of no person or group that has the authority from Christ to depose the Supreme Pontiff.
Do you?

Canon 332

If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

In any case, it will never happen. Only a few cardinals think that the more liberal understandings of Amoris Laetitia are contrary to doctrine. Just look at what these Maltese bishops came up with. Now they may have one of the loosest instructions, at least at this point, but many other episcopal conferences are implementing Amoris Laetitia to allow for some form of internal forum that might allow for communion for some in irregular situations. In no case can a handful of cardinals or theologians deposed the Pope. They can talk to him though.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Canon 332

If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

In any case, it will never happen. Only a few cardinals think that the more liberal understandings of Amoris Laetitia are contrary to doctrine. Just look at what these Maltese bishops came up with. Now they may have one of the loosest instructions, at least at this point, but many other episcopal conferences are implementing Amoris Laetitia to allow for some form of internal forum that might allow for communion for some in irregular situations. In no case can a handful of cardinals or theologians deposed the Pope. They can talk to him though.

It is certainly is not just a ‘few Cardinals’ that have concerns but even if it were, numbers say nothing about the accuracy of their concerns. Even if just one Cardinal expressed serious concerns, it wouldn’t mean his concerns were not accurate or inaccurate but that those concerns would have to be adddessed and looked at on their merits.

 

[pnewton]

It is certainly is not just a ‘few Cardinals’ that have concerns…

You do not know that, so I do not understand the word “certainly.” I only posted based on the facts as they stand today, with four bishops, plus a few unnamed and unknown “other Cardinals.”

 

[collegeathlete]

They know philosophy and he didn’t invent the phrase, “time is more important than space”, you can start with this site. chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351301?eng=y

Search on Google and you will find a lot more, all written by philosophers who have read the Pope’s writings.

You can also do some reading on Hegel’s concept of time and space and compare the two yourself. You could start here theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/01/understanding-hegels-theory-on-time.html

Unfortunately I don’t have unlimited time, so I don’t want to delve into the history of that particular phrase. My next question would be though, if he didn’t invent it, who did?

However, I lost a lot of interest after reading the first link. It is scattered with the author’s largely negative commentary and seems to arbitrarily go into a discussion about philosophy, perhaps trying to artificially make it apply to his own area of expertise. In actuality the Pope himself uses this phrase in the context of Christian living, which the interview the article cites confirms. The article then acknowledges that the Pope said the principle derives “from the pillars of the Church’s social doctrine”. Tying it to Hegel is a red herring.

The contexts in which the phrase comes up also indicate the Pope is concerned about living the Christian life. In addition to the interview, the two Apostolic Exhortations are focused on the promoting the New Evangelization. Given that background, thinking about this through the lens of a philosopher seems irrelevant, especially when considering the Pope’s manner of thinking and speaking is incredibly action-oriented and practical. That can easily be glimpsed when reading his texts or even his homilies. I doubt it could even be established that Pope Francis ever learned Hegel’s philosophy in any meaningful detail. Furthermore, when one looks over the life of Jorge Bergoglio, reading Hegel into anything or trying to compare his thought with Hegel seems to completely miss the mark.

I will also note that you don’t say they know Pope Francis, but repeat that they know philosophy. Imagine Origen52 became Pope and said it is great to spend some time in the sun. Maybe some dermatologist would claim you are promoting skin cancer, while another doctor claims that you are encouraging everyone to live a healthy lifestyle and get plenty of vitamin D. In actuality, anyone who knew you would clearly understand you were merely saying you liked the sun because it felt good to feel its warmth. To understand what someone means by his or her words, it is important to understand the intention of the author, the context, as well as his or her background. Pope Francis is a son of the Church and not of Hegel. He should be read accordingly.

That’s about everything I have to say about this topic on here.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I am aware of no person or group that has the authority from Christ to depose the Supreme Pontiff.
Do you?

This provides some general info regarding deposing a Pope:

The idea of removing a Pope against his will is a much more tricky question. Over the years theologians have advanced many tentative answers, but no official Church teaching has been formulated. There is at least general agreement that a Pope might be removed for heresy – even among theologians who are adamant that the Pope cannot be removed, this exception is often thrown in. For any other offence or inability, the waters are very muddy indeed.
A major problem is that the Pope has no earthly superior, either to charge him with heresy or to demand his resignation for this or any other reason. Some suggest that this might be done by a General Council or by the College of Cardinals, others say the Holy Roman Emperor (the Emperor had a veto power over papal elections until the reign of Pope St. Pius X), others a successor Pope, and still others say that the heretical Pope removes himself but it is up to a successor Pope to declare that removal took place.
However, we do have a few historical examples of Popes being removed. History is not theology, and cannot speak to the validity of the papal removals or of the elections of the men chosen as replacements. But history does give us the benefit of knowing how the Church acted in specific concrete cases, and how subsequent Popes and generations of Catholics looked back on these actions.

rosarychurch.net/answers/qa082002a.html

But in the case of Pope Francis, who out of the four Cardinals or anyone else in support of the dubia has expressed seriously that they seek to depose Pope Francis?

What may take place is a formal correction. If this does indeed happen, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a Pope has been corrected in the history of the Church.

 

[edwayne]

Not all irregulars may be in adulterous unions…some may be only in putatively adulterous as later convalidation affirm. Such can often be reasonably recognised in advance, especially when the Tribunal gears grind to a halt due to mere technical difficulties…as previous Popes have lamented.

Does it matter whether it is putatively adulterous or not?.. it appears that all that matters is being at peace with God, which is precisely what Vertatis Splendor stated cannot be used as a criterion.

 

[Wandile]

I am aware of no person or group that has the authority from Christ to depose the Supreme Pontiff.
Do you?

Yes a poor cannot be deposed. However should the pope fall into formal heresy, he is no longer a catholic and only a catholic can be pope. Thus in this situation he can be deposed. However, or rather shown to be in error and declared to be deposed if he loses he refuses to recant of his error or heresy.

John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Cajetan, and others eminent teachers of the faith all teach that a general council alone would be the competent authority to oversee the matter of an heretical Pope. John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote:

“since the matter at hand concerns the universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the universal Church, which is that of a general council

He cites three historical examples to confirm the point:

*“This is indeed evident from the practice of the Church, for in the case [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols, a synod was gathered together for the purpose of discussing this case, as is recorded in Cap. Hunc c, distinct. 11. And in the case of the schism in which there were three reputed pontiffs, the Council of Constance gathered for the purpose of settling that schism. And also in the case of Pope Symmachus, a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it. It is known, from the resources cited above, that the pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to excuse themselves of charges, did so in the presence of a council.” *

 

[Wandile]

You do not know that, so I do not understand the word “certainly.” I only posted based on the facts as they stand today, with four bishops, plus a few unnamed and unknown “other Cardinals.”

Cardinal Burke has said already that the four cardinals actually have many supporters. See this article for more detail on this.

In fact before AL was even released, the cardinals got a preview of it and 30 cardinals responded with worried questions to the Pope about some content of the document. Pope Francis never responded and published the document anyway. Add to this that a significant number of Bishops Confrences have expressed concern over AL. See This news article for more detail on all this.

Also before AL was published, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith also expressed concerns and issued correction to the document to make it more clear and in line with Catholcin teaching, Pope Francis ignored the CDF and its corrections and published AL anyways. See the above link for more info on this.

Also 23 scholars that include members of pontifical institutions have called for support of the 4 cardinals