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

[Stat_Crux]

Most people seem to be talking about the theological principles of both positions in isolation, or the apparent contradiction with past teaching or the wording of magisterial documents. However, few seem to talking about how such a new teaching could be put into practice pastorally in parishes, and the problems that this would represent.

An example of how the “liberal” interpretation of AL, in which a change in teaching is proposed, could be applied has been proposed by Fr Paul Keller here:

cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/01/06/case-study-communion-divorcedremarried/

Which was then promptly critiqued by canon lawyer Ed Peters here:

cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/01/08/conscience-cant-final-arbiter-gets-communion/

and Fr Joseph Levine here:

crisismagazine.com/2017/not-minister-divorced-remarried

Remember, the proposed change to allow Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried would be unprecedented amongst the Apostolic Churches. The Orthodox Church, who allow remarriage under defined criteria, insist upon a very strict, formal process. Whilst this wouldn’t be compatible with Catholic teaching, the “liberal” interpretation of AL proposes no such formal process (as we see in the Maltese document). Instead leaving the decision down to an individual’s conscience, and ignoring the fact that the two individuals in question are not married in any theologically or sacramentally relevant sense.

In effect it seems the theological argument on which the proposed change in teaching is based is “a fudge”, after wording which defined a more formal process was rejected in the Synods.

 

[Stat_Crux]

The Pope is fundamentally the only one who can resolve the current confusion over which interpretation of AL represents the Church’s position, by formally declaring his position. Until then the current debates will continue, to the detriment of the Church’s mission.

With that in mind, three Bishops have launched an appeal to prayer that the Pope might be moved to help the situation.

crisismagazine.com/2017/pray-pope-francis-re-affirms-church-teaching-marriage

In the article, the three Bishops propose a prayer:

Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco: Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius. Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam Meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.

Which is:

Let us pray for our Pope Francis: May the Lord preserve him and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, but the fact that the marriage cannot be dissolved (i.e., the marriage bond stands) precludes her, even if she is the innocent party, from contracting another marriage. Why?

Why? For the fact of her marriage bond. Nevertheless, she can contract another marriage. It is the issue. The question when she does is then what is her status as a result of her spouse divorcing her when scripture tells us her spouse causes or, even more clearly, maketh her to commit adultery? Is it not the question of culpability? And this is where the question is related to the controversy over certain provisions of AL.

I almost feel I ought to apologize for ever replying to the comment whereby I raised this issue. With the combining of threads, continuing a conversation is already difficult enough, and what we have here is at most a peripheral issue. Anyway, this is my understanding of it, and I know many do not agree.

 

[Abba]

The Pope is fundamentally the only one who can resolve the current confusion over which interpretation of AL represents the Church’s position, by formally declaring his position.** Until then the current debates will continue, to the detriment of the Church’s mission.**

With that in mind, three Bishops have launched an appeal to prayer that the Pope might be moved to help the situation.

crisismagazine.com/2017/pray-pope-francis-re-affirms-church-teaching-marriage

In the article, the three Bishops propose a prayer:

Which is:

Those bishops are the same bishops who have supported the scandal of the four cardinals and just keep adding fuel to the fire. They just need to join the four cardinals and start their own Church. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit and neither you nor the scandal happy cardinals and bishops who are attacking the Holy Father will make him do or not do something.

No threats will make the Holy Father do what he does not want to**
" Until then the current debates will continue, to the detriment of the Church’s mission." ** nor will the call of reporters with their own interests and intentions for the Pope to resign or be brought down will make him come down. The cardinals are being DISOBEDIENT and should RESIGN.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That catechism passage pertains to masturbation, not adultery ������

Its the application of a well known moral theology principle.
Does it really have to be explicitly stated for every act of grave matter mentioned in the CCC?
The CCC did not drop from a clear blue sky, it is simply the exposed peak of a rather large moral theology iceberg to guide the laity. The rest is not so easily accessible to untrained auto-didacts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, causes her to commit adultery.

And here is the Douay-Rheims translation of the verse from the Latin: “But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery…” (Matthew: 5:32) emphasis added

“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matthew: 19,9).

"In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (CCC 1650).

The Gospels of Mark and Luke use only the wording of CCC 1650.

The above is mentioned only In view of the controversy surrounding the implementation of AL (where it may be applicable). The verses from the Gospels as well as CCC 1650 are there to see, and I find their meaning clear enough.

What is it you are getting at - either way she can be said to be a passive adulterer surely and therefore in a state of objective adultery?

The different passages do not seem to be logically mutually exclusive.

Some even interpret this passage to mean she is such even if she doesn’t remarry and isn’t active.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Those bishops are the same bishops who have supported the scandal of the four cardinals and just keep adding fuel to the fire. They just need to join the four cardinals and start their own Church. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit and neither you nor the scandal happy cardinals and bishops who are attacking the Holy Father will make him do or not do something.

No threats will make the Holy Father do what he does not want to**
" Until then the current debates will continue, to the detriment of the Church’s mission." ** nor will the call of reporters with their own interests and intentions for the Pope to resign or be brought down will make him come down. The cardinals are being DISOBEDIENT and should RESIGN.

It shows a lack of charity to so eagerly tell people to commit apostasy and leave the Church because they disagree with you. How many millions of lay Catholics would you similarly be willing to discard in order to silence a legitimate debate?

If we have been called to “accompany” Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Atheists who all deny the Church’s teachings and in some cases* the very divinity of Christ*, why not accompany other Catholics who seek (although you may disagree with their perspective) to promote the Church’s teachings? If you believe you are correct in your interpretation of the teachings of AL, then I’d ask you to show patience and explain your reasoning and try to convince others of the truth of it.

To suggest “the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit” as a blanket position for why they should, in effect, “shut up” presents our faith as a tyranny based on power and not as a family of believers trying to discern God’s will and teachings.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Originally Posted by Stat_Crux
Because the principle until now is that sex outside of marriage is an objective moral evil.

What is it you are getting at - either way she can be said to be a passive adulterer surely and therefore in a state of objective adultery?

“Passive adulterer”

I believe it is theologically goggeldygoop but am willing to be corrected if you can find it in a Magisterial source.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

All posts are to be charitable
Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What is important here is Matthew 5.1: “But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife…maketh [or causes] her to commit adultery.” This concerns culpability (complete consent), one of the conditions for a sin to be a mortal sin. And there is this from Matthew 19,9: “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, commits adultery against her; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” What does that tell you?

Your first reference seems mistaken? Mt 5:32 I believe.

Does it concern culpability? Not so sure.
If one can passively contract a state of mortal sin (e.g. via Adam’s act of mortal sin) then surely it is hypothetically possible to passively contract into “a state of mortal sin” of adultery too?

Also, it may well be Jesus is using an OT meaning of “adultery” here which is broader than 21st century “its sex by two people one of whom is married but not to the other”. In other words the line between divorce and (sexual) adultery was not as sharply delineated as it seems to be nowadays.

Where does it say that she that is put away commits adultery? Isn’t it said she is made or caused to commit adultery? Where then is culpability? If someone holds a gun to a person’s head and makes or causes them to jaywalk, they may be technically guilty of jaywalking but are they culpable?

Correct but it is still called adultery whether culpable or not.
That is the very problem people have with the new directives in AL.
“Technical adultery” as you call it here is only a venial sin and likely not even venial.
But it is still adultery (the definition of the objective matter usually describes the deed often regardless of agent responsibility).

This “contradiction” is well stated in the somewhat difficult moral theology phrase “A man may commit what is adultery yet not as an adulterer” implying there is no moral wrong in some cases.

So if it is true that not all adultery (the evil matter) is done by adulterers (morally evil) then it is legitimate for Pope Francis and many Cardinals to observe that not all active irregulars
are truly “adulterers” despite the “adultery” that may take place.

Why should such unusual cases, if they can be reasonably judged to hold, intrinsically deny Communion?

And what might this mean: "In fidelity to the words of Christ - “Whoever divorceshis wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (CCC 1650). The law of contradiction is certainly in play here.

The principle of non-contradiction is only in play if “adultery” can be demonstrated to mean exactly the same thing in both propositions and this is far from certain in the Mt 5:19 case.

There is “committing adultery” (active) and there is “suffering adultery” (passive).
Both are legitimately called “adultery” from the point of view of objective grave matter but only one is likely grave sin while the other likely not. This is a well debated issue, not a new one.

 

[Abba]

It shows a lack of charity to so eagerly tell people to commit apostasy and leave the Church because they disagree with you. How many millions of lay Catholics would you similarly be willing to discard in order to silence a legitimate debate?

If we have been called to “accompany” Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Atheists who all deny the Church’s teachings and in some cases* the very divinity of Christ*, why not accompany other Catholics who seek (although you may disagree with their perspective) to promote the Church’s teachings? If you believe you are correct in your interpretation of the teachings of AL, then I’d ask you to show patience and explain your reasoning and try to convince others of the truth of it.

To suggest “the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit” as a blanket position for why they should, in effect, “shut up” presents our faith as a tyranny based on power and not as a family of believers trying to discern God’s will and teachings.

I don’t have time for this manipulative, twisting, hypnotic violin effect. I stated what I stated. Period.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Passive adulterer”

I believe it is theologically goggeldygoop but am willing to be corrected if you can find it in a Magisterial source.

Its clearly stated by Jesus in Mt 5:32 is it not?
What more do you want.

 

[Pulvis]

Bishop Emeritus Fragkiskos Papamanolis, is Roman rite. He is head of the Greek Bishops Conference. He is not of the Orthodox.

Thank you. I was mistaken. My apologies to the Bishop.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Its clearly stated by Jesus in Mt 5:19 is it not?
What more do you want.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Thanks, good citation. Another one to add to my list of why encouraging people to have sex outside of marriage was forbidden by Christ himself.

 

[Abba]

Thanks, good citation. Another one to add to my list of why encouraging people to have sex outside of marriage was forbidden by Christ himself.

To what list? A list of condemnations of Pope Francis? Your position is that the Pope is encouraging people to have sex outside of marriage and is disobedient to Christ? How many millions of Catholics would * you* misguide? Ever wondered? Would you call them to disobey the Pope and follow the four bishops? All 1.2 billion?

It really does not matter that 1.2 billion people support the Holy Father. It was the Holy Spirit that selected him and disobedient people will not force him to resign nor bring him down. Good luck with that to you and those who are challenging and presenting the Holy Father as a heretic.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thanks, good citation. Another one to add to my list of why encouraging people to have sex outside of marriage was forbidden by Christ himself.

See corrected verse below while I wipe your skids marks off the asphalt .

 

[edwayne]

Why? For the fact of her marriage bond. Nevertheless, she can contract another marriage.

Trent says that neither one, including the innocent party, can contract another marriage… so how can you say she can?

 

[Thomas_White]

What is it you are getting at - either way she can be said to be a passive adulterer surely and therefore in a state of objective adultery?

Maybe. The Greek word for her ‘adultery’ is passive. There is disagreement about how the word should be translated, and it could even mean “causes her to be deceived”. As you know, understanding the meaning of transliterations can be tricky. What I was getting at was culpability.

The different passages do not seem to be logically mutually exclusive.

They seem quite consistent to me. The only mention of the possible culpability of the one who is divorced–man or woman–is in Matt. 5:32.

Some even interpret this passage to mean she is such even if she doesn’t remarry and isn’t active.

I know. It is curious. What do you think?

 

[Thomas_White]

Trent says that neither one, including the innocent party, can contract another marriage… so how can you say she can?

Good grief. She can contract another (civil) marriage. That’s what I meant, and it is what the Church means when it speaks of an “irregular marriage.” I would have thought this was obvious, but at this point the comments are distant from whatever it was I was originally referring to.

 

[Abba]

…