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

[JPUSC]

Sorry Bud but I don’t think so! This Pope seems to be trying to change doctrine and dogma which can not change. Why do you think the next pope to come along will not wipe the Francis plate clean and reiterate what the previous popes have stated and that is that divorced and remarried are committing adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin. Anyone in a state of Mortal Sin Should not take the Eucharist.Anything the Pope does to change this will ultimately fail.

I’m with you, but he’s already put into place all his cardinals and bishops which will have ramifications for the decades to come.

Appeal of the Chilean Jesuits to Pope Francis: “We need more cardinals and other bishops, so that there will be no return after you.”

katholisches.info/2016/12/31/chiles-jesuiten-franziskus-gib-uns-mehr-kardinaele-und-andere-bischoefe-damit-es-nach-dir-kein-zurueck-mehr-gibt

 

[pnewton]

How do the Maltese guidelines reconcile with the following quotes? Can they be reconciled?

They can’t, but then a new practice never has to reconcile with the old practice. I am not supporting the Malta guidelines, only pointing out that there must be a clear contradiction of doctrine. I do not see there being any absolute contradiction by moving from communion based on objectively visible situations to one based on the state of the soul. It might be unwise, but not logically impermissible. One who is unworthy to receive communion cannot morally receive because of his unworthiness, not because of the way his situation seems. Also, one cannot morally receive if he does so in deliberate disregard to the practice of the Church, but this latter can be modified as long as it does not contradict the former.

 

[JPUSC]

Or in Rome itself. See the new pastoral guidelines from the Cardinal Vicar.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do

 

[dmar198]

“intend to refrain from sexual relations entirely”

That’s not chastity, that is celibacy.

Continence, actually. Celibacy is being unmarried.

 

[pnewton]

Adultery is a mortal sin. Anyone in a state of Mortal Sin… :

This is where the syllogism always fails. Committing a mortal sin does not leave one in a state of mortal sin.

I was accused of playing with words today when I pointed it out. If you think this is playing with words, then you should be totally against the Pope’s initiative. But if you are going to have an opinion on morality, you should at least understand the most basic part of moral theology. Committing a mortal sin may *or may not *leave you in a state of mortal sin (depending on culpability and full consent).

 

[kozlosap]

Those bishops who prefer that their priests use their skills as pastors instead of hall monitors are following the intent of the Holy Father. If divorce and remarriage were rare, then obviously this situation would not be such a big deal, but that is not the case. Over 50% of new marriages will end in divorce and in many, many cases, remarriage. Punishing a person who married an abuser, be it physical or emotional, is cruel beyond belief. First you are abused by your so-called “love of your life”, then you are punished by the Church for the ret of your life? I do not believe that would be the view of most loving Catholics.

 

[TCEL]

Those bishops who prefer that their priests use their skills as pastors instead of hall monitors are following the intent of the Holy Father. If divorce and remarriage were rare, then obviously this situation would not be such a big deal, but that is not the case. Over 50% of new marriages will end in divorce and in many, many cases, remarriage. Punishing a person who married an abuser, be it physical or emotional, is cruel beyond belief. First you are abused by your so-called “love of your life”, then you are punished by the Church for the ret of your life? I do not believe that would be the view of most loving Catholics.

And thus, an argument for stable and monogamous same-sex relationships. The Church is accused of cruelty in that case as well, and it’s going to be more common.

 

[Usige]

Those bishops who prefer that their priests use their skills as pastors instead of hall monitors are following the intent of the Holy Father. If divorce and remarriage were rare, then obviously this situation would not be such a big deal, but that is not the case. Over 50% of new marriages will end in divorce and in many, many cases, remarriage. Punishing a person who married an abuser, be it physical or emotional, is cruel beyond belief. First you are abused by your so-called “love of your life”, then you are punished by the Church for the ret of your life? I do not believe that would be the view of most loving Catholics.

Which “loving Catholics” do you mean? Those who think “banning” abortion, contraception, same sex marriages, pre marital sex, et cetera is unjust or those who are concerned about the immortal souls of their brethren and fear for moral relativists?

How are these people punished? The Church, in Her mercy, will investigate any marriage that might be invalid. If it is found that the abuser misrepresented themselves then the other is free to marry. Christ was clear that allowing divorce was not mercy, but an act of the hardness of our hearts, and yet some turn it around to see allowing divorce as an act of compassion instead of the act of a hardened heart. The vast majority of the (incorrect) 50% of divorces (first marriages end in divorce around 30%) are not abuse, but immaturity that can easily be shown in most tribunals. This is just another end around to saying the Church hold conform to society instead of trying to conform society to Her.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Moderator Note

The AL threads all end up discussing the same things over and over; so I have merged them

Please do not accuse anyone of heresy or imply such a thing.
Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see [thread=132852]Charity[/thread] for specifics, or [thread=116150]CAF rules[/thread] for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Bishop Stephen Lopes, head of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, has issued application guidance on Amoris Laetitia presenting an interpretation consistent with the Church’s traditional teaching on the reception of Communion by those civilly divorced and remarried Catholics.

ncregister.com/daily-news/ordinariate-bishop-issues-pastoral-letter-on-amoris-laetitia

 

[JimG]

What is most important in this discussion is that while a person’s conscience must be obeyed “before all else, even against even the requirement of ecclesiastical authority”, this is also true when the conscience has not erred. As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, the conscience is “a supreme and ultimate tribunal” (emphasis added)

So, if a person’s conscience is formed in accord with consistent Church teaching, as it should be, then he would be bound to disregard the advice of his bishop if that eccleastical authority advised him to receive communion while living in an adulterous relationship.

I can see where one might refer to conscience as “a supreme and ultimate tribunal” in the sense that it is the conscience—formed or unformed—which will lead any particular individual to a particular moral decision. But it is not ontologically supreme, nor inevitably morally certain. Conscience is a human faculty, a faculty by which the intellect makes moral judgements, and those may be erroneous. Didn’t Jesus, after all correct the consciences of his hearers with respect to the permanence of marriage?

 

[Thomas_White]

So, if a person’s conscience is formed in accord with consistent Church teaching, as it should be, then he would be bound to disregard the advice of his bishop if that eccleastical authority advised him to receive communion while living in an adulterous relationship.

I have nary a clue. You have taken a quote out of context and replied to it in in a nonsensical way.

I can see where one might refer to conscience as “a supreme and ultimate tribunal” in the sense that it is the conscience—formed or unformed—which will lead any particular individual to a particular moral decision. But it is not ontologically supreme, nor inevitably morally certain. Conscience is a human faculty, a faculty by which the intellect makes moral judgements, and those may be erroneous. Didn’t Jesus, after all correct the consciences of his hearers with respect to the permanence of marriage?

Actually, I was quoting then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI. The teaching on conscience is provided in CCC 1776 and 1800. Invariably, there is resistance to this Catholic teaching, usually by an attempt to use circular logic to say “an informed conscience” must conform to official teaching. However, this argument is itself not the official teaching of the Church, nor is it the teaching of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger. I would suggest a person must advance beyond clericalism to ever understand the Church’s teaching on the conscience.

 

[JimG]

I was just trying to clarifying what conscience is. It is not in itself magisterial teaching, so it is fallible. The Church’s duty to hand down the deposit of Faith is not an exercise of clericalism.

 

[Thomas_White]

So, if a person’s conscience is formed in accord with consistent Church teaching, as it should be, then he would be bound to disregard the advice of his bishop if that eccleastical authority advised him to receive communion while living in an adulterous relationship.

Yes, absolutely, if disregarding the advice is the certain judgment of his conscience. That is the teaching on conscience.

 

[philipl]

I believe there will come a day that things we believed were sins will become acceptable. The seven deadly sins will become things we shouldnt judge people over.

Oh, there will be new Seven deadly sins, Like being judgemental or some other things liberals hate. Being a conservative could be another one.

 

[gilliam]

I believe there will come a day that things we believed were sins will become acceptable. The seven deadly sins will become things we shouldnt judge people over. .

Is isn’t our job to judge anyone.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue, I may not have a masters in theology, or be as learned as others on this forum or within the Church hierarchy, but I am a Christian man doing my best to learn how best to be a faithful adopted son of God. The Catechism was released for this purpose, to help the laity. I often go outside the Catechism to get other opinions and insight. I don’t claim to know each and every theological term inside and out, but I’m here to learn, and I believe I have more than just a rudimentary understanding of the Catholic theology on sin.

I love St. Thomas Aquinas, and have been delving into him the past few years. There is obviously much more in his corpus for me to study, but I think it says something that saints like St. Dominic Savio and Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich (she only had an English degree from a local New Jersey college) were not as learned to understand certain concepts, yet made valid points in their writings. “Death before sin!”, as St. Dominic said. Blunt and simple? Sure. The disposition all Christians should have instead of looking for an easy way out? Yes, absolutely.

Anyways, I assume in mentioning malum culpae and malum poenae, you’re referring to the first part of the Summa, question 48, specifically articles 5 and 6. Suarez says in his Disputationes Metaphysicae:

One commentator on Question 48 cites Herbert McCabe for another perspective on the meaning of malum poenae:

Brian Davies in his book The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil says:

My question to you, Blue, is in what way do you believe that malum culpae and malum poenae relate to this issue regarding the divorced and civilly remarried (who are living together more uxorio after being unable to attain a decree of nullity) who wish to receive the Eucharist without living in continence?

At this moment, I see no connection except that the theoretical woman spoken of in Matt. 5:32 has suffered an evil by being made an adulteress, in that “she bears the taint and the disqualifications of the adulteress in virtue of a decision made not by her but by her husband, and it is this injustice that Jesus condemns.” She is suffering from an evil that her husband brought about by his unjust and evil action. I think we can both agree this woman would be able to receive Communion today.

However, if that same woman at a later time turns around and fornicates with another man who is not her rightful husband, she has done evil, as Davies notes. This was a “free action”, according to Suarez. I believe, as does St. John Paul, the four Cardinals, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and Blessed Pope Paul VI that:

Billy I have absolutely no axe to grind with you.
It is simply an observation of fact that you do not yet possess the professional tools needed to fruitfully critique theological documents, classical moral theology arguments or analysis because you simply do not fully grasp the system or the terms.
It is near impossible for any person except a genius to do so without formal training. To think you can do so simply by opening the Summa cold makes as much sense to me as thinking someone can effectively learn Karate from watching an in depth video and then effectively spar with an orange belt.

If you do not accept these hard facts of Catholic life I am sorry about that but there is nothing more I can do but helpfully advise you of this and leave you to your devices.
Some of us are classically moral theology educated and some are not.

You are more than welcome to state your own views and start your own points here.

But if you are going to attempt to critique any moral theology analysis I might have originated please don’t expect me to respond if I can see from your responses that you really have little idea of the propositions or concepts I am putting forward.

I have politely observed this to you before but you seem unable to accept this reality; rather you seem to take offence and that somehow I am saying you are less than intelligent. That is not the case.

Therefore from this point forward I will not respond at all to any critique you may feel the need to make if I judge you really have not understood the scholastic moral theology concepts I often use to justify a position I might take on some point of morality.

God’s peace.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A little catechism here. Communion is a sacrament of the living, requiring that the recipient be in a state of grace. To lose grace and fall into mortal sin requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.

Is a sexually active remarried divorcee in mortal sin? (or more precisely, must a priest assume that such an individual is in mortal sin?)

Grave matter: check.

Full knowledge: check. A Catholic who is a massgoer and wants to receive Communion, and especially a Catholic who is subject of the ‘accompaniment’ process AL describes, ***necessarily ***knows that he/she is in a gravely sinful state. No invincible ignorance here.

Full consent: check. Moral theology is clear on the conditions that remove free will to the extent of making a sinful act not sinful, or at least not mortally sinful. Conditions such as brute force, fear of one’s life, and so on. ***None ***of these conditions apply to a couple cohabiting in an irregular union and freely engaging in sexual acts. I can give you the necessary references if you like.

If you were a recently ordained priest I am afraid I don’t know any experienced priest who would recommend you for Confessional faculties on the basis of these statements Justin .

The whole Communion-for-remarried-divorcees question is not actually a complicated one from the moral theology POV. It’s indefensible unless you toss the principles of Catholic morality overboard and reinvent the Ten Commandments

So you believe Pope Francis has tossed principles of Catholic morality overboard?
That’s a tad unrealistic a view of the current situation if you really believe that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

He does however advocate Communion for remarried divorcees who are sexually active, something he made very clear in his endorsement of the Argentinian bishops’ guidelines of Sept 2016.

Well that at least is something we fully agree on with the exception that he doesn’t so much advocate it as put it out there as a possibility for further evolving “discussion.”

That “discussion”, usually means around 20+ years at least before a final decision might be made…or it might just roll on unresolved and not needing to be further resolved like the question of whether Mary actually died or not .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, but as an oblate I am very close to one and I work in its library. I of course use the same Rule for my own conversatio morum!