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

[Thomas_White]

An error of false-equivalence. Self-defence has been part of the Church’s teaching for centuries. The action is not the death of the attacker, but the defence of oneself or somebody else. If the attacker does not attack, they are not killed by the defender. That is also the argument behind the concept of a just war (e.g. the allies World War II) and the moral justification used by the Church in explaining why it is legitimate for nations to have armies and for soldiers to “kill” in the act of carrying out their duties of defense.

Unless I am mistaken, blue’s comment was tongue-in-cheek…:knight2:

 

[commenter]

Private revelation is private. We aren’t bound to believe it. Is it safe for me to assent it’s the final battle? I don’t think so, but I certainly can’t ignore my senses and say we aren’t facing a struggle over the family. There’s nothing prophetic in admitting that much. Anyway, I’m wondering if this thread will get pulled.

I certainly would not minimize the battle we are in, and the stakes are high. It might or might not be the last battle, but the attack on the family and on prolife is the ultimate struggle of our generation. I am just pointing out the Magisterium is directing the counter attack, and private revelations are helping rally the troops.

 

[Seamus_L]

Maltese bishops’ implementation of Amoris Laetitia is a disaster, says canon lawyer ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/maltese-bishops-implementation-of-amoris-laetitia-is-a-disaster-says-canon-lawyer

 

[Stat_Crux]

Thank you for your great insights. Beyond the issue of Communion for couples in irregular situations, I would like to know your thoughts on the role of conscience with pastoral accompaniment in regard to other committed/known mortal sins. Namely, can it somehow be an “anesthetic” and subsequently a cure to the disease, if you will?

I’m not a Priest, so I will caveat that I’m no “accredited expert” on pastoral accompaniment. But, if I interpret your question correctly as being about the relationship between conscience and the advice of a Priest in pastoral accompaniment, I can’t do better than Archbishop Chaput’s introduction to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s application guidance for AL, which presents an orthodox position. This provides a useful summary of the relationship between conscience and objective truth, with references, which is applicable to other areas of Christian moral teaching aside from Marriage and Divorce, and the Priest or Bishop’s God-given responsibility in teaching that truth faithfully when lead an individual towards Christ’s plan for their salvation.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “an anaesthetic” in this context, but here goes:

In issuing Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis once again calls the Church to renew and intensify the Christian missionary proclamation of God’s mercy, while presenting more persuasively the Church’s teaching about the nature of the family and the Sacrament of Matrimony…Amoris Laetitia therefore calls for a sensitive accompaniment of those with an imperfect grasp of Christian teaching on marriage and family life, who may not be living in accord with Catholic belief, and yet desire to be more fully integrated into Church life, including the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist.

The Holy Father’s statements build on the classic Catholic understanding, key to moral theology, of the relationship between objective truth about right and wrong – for example, the truth about marriage revealed by Jesus himself – and how the individual person grasps and applies that truth to particular situations in his or her judgment of conscience. Catholic teaching makes clear that the subjective conscience of the individual can never be set against objective moral truth, as if conscience and truth were two competing principles for moral decision-making.

As St. John Paul II wrote, such a view would “pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. . . . Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil” (Veritatis Splendor 56, 60). Rather, “conscience is the application of the law to a particular case” (Veritatis Splendor59). Conscience stands under the objective moral law and should be formed by it, so that “[t]he truth about moral good, as that truth is declared in the law of reason, is practically and concretely recognized by the judgment of conscience” (Veritatis Splendor 61).

But since well-meaning people can err in matters of conscience, especially in a culture that is already deeply confused about complex matters of marriage and sexuality, a person may not be fully culpable for acting against the truth. Church ministers, moved by mercy, should adopt a sensitive pastoral approach in all such situations – an approach both patient but also faithfully confident in the saving truth of the Gospel and the transforming power of God’s grace, trusting 2 in the words of Jesus Christ, who promises that “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (Jn 8:32).” Pastors should strive to avoid both a subjectivism that ignores the truth or a rigorism that lacks mercy.

It seems that one of the many unfortunate impacts of the decrease in the number of Priests over the last 50 years is the increased demand on the average Priest’s time. In the old days it wasn’t uncommon for lay men and women to have a dedicated “spiritual advisor” to whom they would receive 1-1 counseling, tuition and guidance on their spiritual lives. This had the effect of forming and guiding each individual Catholic based on their individual circumstances, usually before any “difficult situations” had occurred. This isn’t so much of a feature in more recent years, where our contact will be with a Priest at Mass - or in Confession after a “difficult/bad” situation has occurred.

Combined with an increased (and increasing) cultural attitude that holds suspicion for anyone in a position of expertise or authority, the calls by some to recognise the “supremacy” of an individual conscience over an objective truth is not to be unexpected.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Nobody on either side of the debate over AL is denying that some of Christ’s teaching is hard, some of it can often seem impossible in our daily lives. However, we must recall that if Christ is who he said he was, and if we believe him, we have to understand that what he said was said, and preserved for us in writing until this day, because it was an important part of his plan for us. There were plenty of things he said and did in the years of his life which were not recorded. So that which was recorded must somehow be important and, being from God, does not require any “editing” by us when trying to present it to the world. We can talk about how to present that truth, but when He says things like “that which God has joined together, let not man separate” we can’t avoid saying what He has said without denying Him in some way.

We must also remember that Christ unceasingly said things so controversial that He was killed for saying them. That doesn’t mean that Christ left us with an exhortation to seek a chance for martyrdom, but He did make it abundantly clear that preaching the Word of God is not a popularity contest where the sole judge of “success” is the “total figure”, but instead working one individual soul after another to preach the truth. We pray as if it all depends on God, but we act as though it all depends on us.

Priests and Bishops are therefore inheritors of the Apostles, chosen by Christ and ordained to pass on and teach that truth free from the personal theological preferences of the individual Priest or the age in which they live.

We must understand how difficult their role is when they try to pastor to us lay Catholics. If you ever want an example of how a Priest can act in persona Christi, think of the poor Parish Priest, whose solemn duty and responsibility it is to preach the same controversial teachings that got Christ killed, and who is often hounded and attacked by the very people he has dedicated his life in trying to serve when teaching that same truth.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Maltese bishops’ implementation of Amoris Laetitia is a disaster, says canon lawyer ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/maltese-bishops-implementation-of-amoris-laetitia-is-a-disaster-says-canon-lawyer

The original author, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, has also now followed up on that article on his blog:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/the-maltese-directive-makes-answering-the-dubia-urgent/

 

[pnewton]

Veritas Splendor is addressing another than Amoris Laetitia, in that it is promoting the importance of objective morality. Amoris Laetitis teaches the same in the body of the exhortation as it describes the ideal of marriage. However, it also allows for the possibility that there may be times when the question of whether one is in a state of mortal sin might be of greater importance that whether there is a case of objective mortal sin. We know this is true when one stands before God. He will not judge the objective count of sins, but the actuality of sin, which includes culpability and consent. So we could have a situation where one can stand before the altar of God in Heaven, but not the altar at his local parish.

 

[Randolph]

I’m not a Priest, so I will caveat that I’m no “accredited expert” on pastoral accompaniment. But, if I interpret your question correctly as being about the relationship between conscience and the advice of a Priest in pastoral accompaniment, I can’t do better than Archbishop Chaput’s introduction to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s application guidance for AL, which presents an orthodox position. This provides a useful summary of the relationship between conscience and objective truth, with references, which is applicable to other areas of Christian moral teaching aside from Marriage and Divorce, and the Priest or Bishop’s God-given responsibility in teaching that truth faithfully when lead an individual towards Christ’s plan for their salvation.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “an anaesthetic” in this context, but here goes:

It seems that one of the many unfortunate impacts of the decrease in the number of Priests over the last 50 years is the increased demand on the average Priest’s time. In the old days it wasn’t uncommon for lay men and women to have a dedicated “spiritual advisor” to whom they would receive 1-1 counseling, tuition and guidance on their spiritual lives. This had the effect of forming and guiding each individual Catholic based on their individual circumstances, usually before any “difficult situations” had occurred. This isn’t so much of a feature in more recent years, where our contact will be with a Priest at Mass - or in Confession after a “difficult/bad” situation has occurred.

Combined with an increased (and increasing) cultural attitude that holds suspicion for anyone in a position of expertise or authority, the calls by some to recognise the “supremacy” of an individual conscience over an objective truth is not to be unexpected.

Thank you for rescuing and answering my badly phrased question.

I have followed your recent posts in different threads. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)uts and contributions to the discussions at hand. I am learning a lot, and am looking forward to reading your future posts.

 

[pnewton]

Of course. The majority of Catholics will in all likelihood end up endorsing the interpretations of AL as implemented by the bishops of Argentina (supported by the Pope), Malta, Atlantic Canada, etc. Communion will be given to remarried divorcees, assisted suicides and - inevitably - cohabiting homosexual and lesbian couples, with most wondering what the fuss is about.

My point is that a Catholic who still takes the Magisterium seriously will have no choice but to resist these implementations.

I am going to call garbage on that. ** I **am one that agrees with what the Pope supported, and you add all that other insulting and unorthodox beliefs on me? That is incredibly illogical.

The Pope takes the Magisterium very serious and he is intelligent enough not to be so narrow-minded as to disregard others who disagree. One who is believes all these interpretations are wrong are not more Catholic than the Pope just because they are more rigid. If anything they run the danger of the Pharisees who put their own understanding of the Law about that of God who also understood that mercy is part of the law.

An sure it can be done. What you mean is you can’t wrap your head around it because you think the law of non-contradiction applies. A Catholic should never elevate their own opinion so high as to think it excludes the Holy Father, much less his fellow Catholics.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Thank you for rescuing and answering my badly phrased question.

I have followed your recent posts in different threads. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)uts and contributions to the discussions at hand. I am learning a lot, and am looking forward to reading your future posts.

Not at all, many thanks for your kind comment. I hope I answered your question somewhere along the line.

I’ve got to go to bed now, but it wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t also mention that much of what I’m saying is founded on the analysis that has already performed by far greater minds than myself. But, if I’m to say anything about sticking to a position based on reason, logic and tradition, it’s that because it is based on reason it is capable of being communicated and demonstrated to others because it is founded on a reproducible sequence of questions and answers that lay out the key considerations and principles which can be followed by anyone (even me!). The same can’t easily be said of a position seemingly based on emotions and gut feelings, which are hard enough to convey to another human being in general everyday conversation; let alone when trying to faithfully communicate the plan of salvation as revealed to us by God Almighty.

 

[billy15]

Surely it is lip service to AL if the Philly Guidelines do not allow any possibility of access to the sacraments for some active irregulars as AL and the Arg Draft allow?

Well that’s the thing, what do you mean by “any possibility of the sacraments”? Obviously any divorced and civilly remarried couple may have access to the Sacrament of reconciliation if they are sorry for their sins and resolve to amend their life by remaining continent. That opens the door to Communion, and if they mess up, they can go to Reconciliation again if they are contrite. If that’s what you mean, I’m totally behind this and always have been, as that what the Church teaches. AL hasn’t changed anything, as Cardinal Müller said, right?

But if you believe AL has changed Church practice, and if by “any possibility of access to the sacraments” you mean that unrepentant couples engaging in adultery/fornication can possibly be absolved without firm purpose of amendment and then receive the Eucharist… I completely reject that and reject the validity of your comment that the guidelines by Chaput are “lip service”. I agree with these bishops that I’ve listed: AL does not allow for any new permissions or give new possibilities for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive the sacraments outside of what was already made apparent by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio 84. So in that reading of the Exhortation, AL is in line with the constant teaching of the Church, Chaput and the others have quoted it correctly, and are not engaging in lip service in any way.

If you are referring to my contribution you may have misunderstood.
I was lamenting that the US Bishops Conference did not come out with unified Guidelines for the USA as a whole.

I apologize for misunderstanding then.

Many contributors find it difficult that couples can be treated one way in this town and completely different in the next.

I do too. I think between the interpretations given by Archbishops Chaput and Sample, Bishop Conley and the others, compared to those given by Bishop McElroy, Bishop Elbs, the Bishops of Malta, and others… we are seeing a lot of confusion. If the issue of the divorced and civilly remarried and the Eucharist is analogous to how different dioceses legislate abstinence and fasting norms, then there should be no problem with the latter group’s interpretation. But if the issue is much more substantial and deals with negative commandments which allow for no exceptions whatsoever (and the issue certainly is such), then having so many different interpretations by our world’s bishops is certainly scandalous. I think this alone makes it apparent that the first question of the four cardinals’ dubia really does necessitate an answer, “Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?”

I think it’d be great if bishops’ conferences (like the US) could make a unified statement, but it appears that the US bishops are not unified in a way that the Albertan bishops were, which allowed them to make a unified statement. But even more so, it should be apparent that on this issue, the entire Church should be unified, and no matter how we look at it, it’s sad to start seeing divisions happening already. That’s why I keep praying for unity, and that Truth will prevail.

I think this whole issue of “personal conscience” is leading us down a road that may be hard to turn back from if divorced and civilly remarried can do what the Maltese bishops are pointing towards when they say:

If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with ‘humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it’, a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”

Look at the bolded part of the quote. I ask honestly, not facetiously, what holds anyone back from taking the bolded portion out and replacing it with another group? “A person living in multiple, polygamous relationships” for example? “A person cohabiting with a long-time partner”, for another example? This can lead to a notion that perhaps certain morals are subjective, rather than objectively right or wrong.Fr, Mark Pilon explored this more in depth in a commentary he wrote just a few weeks ago:

I think it is obvious that such moral confusion… is likely caused by (1) the effective ignoring of the grave intrinsic evil of such moral acts, and (2) a rather facile recourse to the shelter of subjective conscience and moral relativism. Such an approach to serious moral issues and pastoral problems is about to unleash a torrent of “internal forum of conscience” solutions to all contested moral issues…

For instance, how about these cases of conscience being settled in the internal forum of private conscience?

**

1. Max works for the local mob as an accountant and covers up from the government their illegal gains from prostitution, gambling, drugs, and loan sharking. He recognizes this is illegal, and is genuinely sorry for having to do it. However, his conscience tells him it is morally acceptable because his defection from the mob would almost certainly cause harm and maybe death to his family. Does the priest accompany him by simply telling him to follow his conscience and to receive Communion if he thinks he is not guilty of any serious sinning?

 

[billy15]

Some interpretations of AL seem to posit that sex outside of marriage remains “mortally sinful”, but that there are circumstances under which one can continue to repeatedly and deliberately carry on regardless. In the same way, the “liberal” interpretation of AL does not propose that the first valid marriage can be dissolved, but that one could in good conscience ignore that fact and carry on regardless as though the present civil marriage, in effect, “overrides” the valid sacramental marriage. They never come out and say they, but that seems to be the essential substance of what’s being proposed.

I agree, I think you made a really good point here. You’ve made some thought provoking comments elsewhere too, so thanks for that.

I’ve also read Remaining in the Truth of Christ, and Archbishop Cyril Vasil, S.J. made some really good points on how the way Orthodox Christians view remarriage isn’t compatible with Catholic teaching. It was very thorough and in-depth, and gave a good rebuttal to what Cardinal Kasper had proposed in his book.

 

[pnewton]

The original author, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, has also now followed up on that article on his blog:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/the-maltese-directive-makes-answering-the-dubia-urgent/

I do not know if Ed Peters includes The Pope as a blind man referenced in his column, but I do know that everyone today is in such a hurry. I will wait for the Pope. He is such a holy man with a great vision for the Church. I think if he were granted as much consideration as criticism, we would see that he is both orthodox and forward-thinking. In any case, while I agree with this initiative of the Holy Father, I would have stood by him even if I didn’t agree. He is not proposing heresy or any heterodox idea, even if it does change some of our traditional disciplines.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

From a contemporaneous account of Bishop John Fisher’s famous public declaration in defence of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon, for which he refused to recant and was subsequently martyred:

I wish I could understand the relevance.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But if you believe AL has changed Church practice

Absolutely, I do not see how anyone can read AL now in the light of the endorsed ArgDraft and objectively see anything otherwise.

… and if by “any possibility of access to the sacraments” you mean that unrepentant couples engaging in adultery/fornication can possibly be absolved without firm purpose of amendment and then receive the Eucharist…

Quite a few unproven assumptions here:
(a) yes I believe it is possible for some active irregulars to be truly repentant yet unable to change their behaviour/situation in the medium term;
(b) yes I believe Jesus forgave sin without first eliciting an explicit firm purpose of amendment;
(c) yes, I believe that there very different classes of both “adultery” and “adulterers”…as does Jesus, many Cardinals, many Bishops and certainly Pope Francis. Not all of them are the “adulterers” condemned by Jesus.
(d) it is even possible that some active irregulars may not strictly speaking require ongoing Confession re their ongoing evil activitities - for the same reason that killers (an evil activity) on active duty overseas don’t when going to Communion…though I think it always a very good thing to confess even venial sins of grave matter regardless.
(e) yes, I believe some such active “adulterers” are in a state of grace and in fact are daily growing closer to Jesus and the local parish precisely because of the longed for stability of their second marriage. As does Pope Francis and most pastors I suggest. Canon lawyers maybe not so much.
(f) yes, I believe there is little actual scandal these days in such graced persons being provided access to Communion…who on earth would know whether someone suddenly receiving Communion has access through a recent positive Tribunal/Convalidation decision or a positive Accompaniment decision? For most these are very personal and private matters that fellow parishioners would know nothing about. So really the only one who needs to know is the PP.

 

[graciew]

Then why, recently, is so much of Pope St John Paul II’s teaching on marriage, the family and morality now so publically criticised and labelled as “rigid legalism” by those who wish to change teaching?

This is vapour in my eyes to answer,and I mean well.Nothing much to get hold of really.
With all my limitations, I do not see this crowd around sincerely,nor any such public criticism and there is no relation between John Paul and legalism
What persons speculate or critize is their own business really…
So I am afraid,I cannot help much to answer this.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

On the contrary, the “objective moral evil” of adultery is entirely consistent with the teaching of Veritatis Splendor.

That is not the easy call you think given he only ever used the expression once in VS and never again in any other of his documents that I can find.

That strongly suggests it was an expression he threw together for the given context without any great over-arching meaning or clear indication re what he actually meant.

I see no reason to assume he meant any more than “grave matter” - and indeed a poor way of expressing same…but perhaps its meaningful to the Proportionalists he was addressing.

VS teaches that there are objectively evil actions, of which paragraph 81 provides examples including adultery…

Yes we all understand the rest.

Your postings suggest you do not define sex outside of an existing valid marriage (or “adultery” in the correct technical sense of the word) as being an objective moral evil.

If by this is meant “grave matter” then of course its the basic component of objectivity in complete moral acts.

If not then there is a problem. Can visible behaviour alone ever be accurately described as “a moral act” (let alone a good moral act or a bad moral act). I believe not, “moral acts” are inferred from the objective behaviour…but they are never “seen” with the eyes. That would be called “Physicalism”. Some contributors here suffer from this ethical approach where the mere sensible discovery of adulterous or contraceptive or abortive incidents proves mortal sin in the agents. That is ridiculous.

I’m not certain your use of “cobbled together” is an appropriate way to describe Veritatis Splendor.

I think you well know this refers to the expression “objective moral evil” which only occurs once in the document. I am not aware JPII (or any Pope for that matter) ever used the expression again.

But perhaps you will again surprise me with another find and then we can re-assess more clearly what it might actually mean if not simply “grave matter” … and likely poorly cobbled together at that .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If we need a theology degree to understand what God is apparently asking us to do, and understand why it doesn’t contradict the past teaching of the Church, then one might well ask why Christ thought it best to start sharing His word by walking around the Holy Land sharing such an esoteric, complicated philosophy with illiterate Judean peasants

We don’t need academic theological education if we don’t interfere with the content or the way that Tribunals and Priestly Accompaniments come to their decisions, Church Teaching come from the pulpit and Magisterial Exhortations are delivered to us laity from Rome.

The moment a lay person starts to publicly comment or even pontificate on such matters perhaps that is the time they need a theology degree or two or even some pastoral experience perhaps…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

With respect to the concept of intrinsic evil, there is this to consider:

“God looked at everything he had made and found it very good” (Genesis, 1:31).

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature of a thing

Augustine thus maintained that evil resulted from the misuse of what is good.

Indeed.
And to further complicate matters there are two ways a good thing can be misused: by a decision of the soul (a moral evil) or by a deed of the body (a physical evil).

The two are clearly linked but they can be differentiated and all human thoughts, words and deeds are a mixture of both to varying degrees dependent on the situation and the life history and character of the agent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But according to the Malta bishops, the only ‘pastoral’ direction they give to people in any kind of situation (they themselves knowing absolutely nothing of the circumstances in any, and having no (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever, which is not what AL itself stated), is 'if you feel at peace with God in your conscience (no directives at all on even HOW to make a good examination of conscience!), you may receive.

Well I am sure you will see what you want to see but I do not see that explicitly stated there.