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

[edwayne]

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.

But an ‘irregular’ marriage is no marriage at all, so I don’t know what you’re getting at. I thought your point was that if she was the innocent party (i.e., caused her to be an adulteress), then she was somehow free to enter into another marriage.

The Church states that one who is separated from their spouse cannot contract another marriage while their spouse is still living. Therefore, attempting to contract another marriage (by entering into a civil union) is adulterous. And what Trent is saying is this applies to the innocent party as well.

 

[Ginny89]

First of all, a single person, never married, can certainly commit adultery.

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?

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?

If Jesus says “whoever divorces his wife” how then is divorce unreal or impossible? What is it the guilty spouse–in your first sentence above–is guilty of if it isn’t divorcing his spouse? How would the fact that “the guilty divorcer cannot marry again” support you argument re the innocent spouse? And there is in your last sentence: “Not on whether someone was responsible for the divorce…” What divorce? The impossible one?

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. Divorce is a reality, and it is a reality the Church recognizes. So is a second marriage. These are facts, not impossibilities. It is why the divorced and remarried, absent an annulment, are not permitted to receive communion (absent the exception of living as brother and sister). That the first marriage would remain valid in the eyes of the Church is also a fact. Is this what you mean by “contradiction”? It is the teaching of the Church.

Several things:

1. Single people cannot commit adultery without the involvement of a married person. The fact is, by accusing someone of adultery who remarries, the Lord cannot be speaking of fornication which is the sin of pre-marital sex but of adultery, the sin of extra-marital sex, which requires at least one party to already be married to someone else. Dont thinj theres a big confusion there.
2. Divorce is real only to human eyes. If it was real to God then there would be no adultery at all as this person would have “married” as opposed to having illicit sex. It is precisely because it is IMPOSSIBLE to “put assunder what God has put together” that any idea of a sin of adultery arises. The Lord says that these people are still married to the persons they have purported to civilly put away. There is ofcourse a difference between legalities and ontological realities as seen by God. Our faith does not recognize ANY divorce of a valid sacramental marriage as ontollogically real, just civil necessities. So I think this debate over the words “impossible” is one of semantics and not substance. Every Catholic who knows anything about their faith must surely understand what I mean by saying the divorce isnt actually real.
3. There is no way a person who remarries is coerced to do so in the same way a person with a gun to his head is. …unless you are talking about an actual forced marriage which is illegal in almost all countries on earth and which is a legal and religious nullity: marriage cannot happen without the consent of the parties. Yet I suspect that is not what you are talking about. An innocent spouse cannot be forced to commit adultery even though they can be caused to by being put in the position where they would even consider it in the first place, such as loneliness. But they would still be free to choose to do so.
4. The remarried are not permitted communion only because of adultery, not divorce. Those divorced but not remarried are free to receive communion. Adultery could not be imputed to those who remarried if they were not still married to their first spouse. It is because they are that the church requirea them to cease sexual activity with their present ‘spouse’ because the church doesnt recognize this present ‘spouse’ or ‘maeriage’ as real as long as the first one is held to be valid.

 

[Ginny89]

The is no other case where communion is acceptable beyond those already mentioned except the case with invincible ignorance.

Yes. That is what we have been arguing.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Divorce is real only to human eyes.

I love this wording, I hadn’t seen it said that way before. Thank you for sharing it in this particular way.

 

[pnewton]

So you yourself don’t think that the Maltese guidelines can be reconciled with the various quotes from Familiaris Consortio, the Catechism etc that I posted.

It does have to reconciled if there are issues of Doctrine involved.

There can be more than one practice that is doctrinally acceptable. Therefore, even when there is a practice based on doctrine, a new practice can be given, as long as it too does not contradict an established doctrine.

 

[TMC]

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 agree that we should allow more discussion within the Church, and I respect your right to disagree with the Church on this issue. But I wonder why the same standard is not applied to disagreements on other issues? I have been posting here for years and have been regularly called names or invited to depart because I disagree with some Church teachings. Perhaps we should all agree to discuss all issues more openly and collegially?

 

[pnewton]

Nope. Habitual sins, a.k.a. vices, do not remove culpability. This is standard moral theology. Would you like references? (in other words, do I really need to say this?)

If you have any. I do not agree. I am positive reading Amoris Laetitia that the Holy Father does not agree.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17844

Does addiction diminish culpability for “addictive sins”?

Insofar as addiction impairs one’s ability to consent to the sin, yes, addiction may lessen one’s personal culpability for a later sin committed under the influence of the addiction. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:
One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent (CCC 1862).

This does not mean that there is absolutely no culpability for addictive sins; only that addiction may impair consent and diminish culpability. In such a case, depending on the capacity for consent, an addictive sin may not be a mortal sin if it lacks full and free consent. A sin committed with insufficient consent would be venial.

 

[edwayne]

There can be more than one practice that is doctrinally acceptable. Therefore, even when there is a practice based on doctrine, a new practice can be given, as long as it too does not contradict an established doctrine.

But the guidelines provided by the Maltese bishops appear to do just that - contradict established doctrine. At the end of the day, it appears that, even if they find for themselves living as brother and sister too difficult (or impossible) and provided they are at peace with God over the situation, a divorced and civilly remarried couple can present themselves for Holy Communion.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

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

 

[Thomas_White]

Several things:

1. Single people cannot commit adultery without the involvement of a married person. The fact is, by accusing someone of adultery who remarries, the Lord cannot be speaking of fornication which is the sin of pre-marital sex but of adultery, the sin of extra-marital sex, which requires at least one party to already be married to someone else. Dont thinj theres a big confusion there.
2. Divorce is real only to human eyes. If it was real to God then there would be no adultery at all as this person would have “married” as opposed to having illicit sex. It is precisely because it is IMPOSSIBLE to “put assunder what God has put together” that any idea of a sin of adultery arises. The Lord says that these people are still married to the persons they have purported to civilly put away. There is ofcourse a difference between legalities and ontological realities as seen by God. Our faith does not recognize ANY divorce of a valid sacramental marriage as ontollogically real, just civil necessities. So I think this debate over the words “impossible” is one of semantics and not substance. Every Catholic who knows anything about their faith must surely understand what I mean by saying the divorce isnt actually real.
3. There is no way a person who remarries is coerced to do so in the same way a person with a gun to his head is. …unless you are talking about an actual forced marriage which is illegal in almost all countries on earth and which is a legal and religious nullity: marriage cannot happen without the consent of the parties. Yet I suspect that is not what you are talking about. An innocent spouse cannot be forced to commit adultery even though they can be caused to by being put in the position where they would even consider it in the first place, such as loneliness. But they would still be free to choose to do so.
4. The remarried are not permitted communion only because of adultery, not divorce. Those divorced but not remarried are free to receive communion. Adultery could not be imputed to those who remarried if they were not still married to their first spouse. It is because they are that the church requirea them to cease sexual activity with their present ‘spouse’ because the church doesnt recognize this present ‘spouse’ or ‘maeriage’ as real as long as the first one is held to be valid.

We know the teachings of the Church concerning marriage and divorce. And, again, there is this teaching:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (CCC1650).

And, also again, a single person, never married, can certainly commit adultery.

 

[Ginny89]

I agree that we should allow more discussion within the Church, and I respect your right to disagree with the Church on this issue. But I wonder why the same standard is not applied to disagreements on other issues? I have been posting here for years and have been regularly called names or invited to depart because I disagree with some Church teachings. Perhaps we should all agree to discuss all issues more openly and collegially?

This is a mischaracterization of the state of affairs. How is this person “disagreeing with the church” on this issue? The very debate here is WHAT the church is actually teaching.

We have clear teaching from Trent and previous popes (and frankly Jesus and the apostles) and an ambiguous phrase from the current pope whose private positions are known to lean on one side.

You have clear disagreements among Bishops who stand with the clear perennial teaching and bishops who are teaching something different based on the pope’s ambiguous phrasing. You have a pope who has chosen the strategy of silence.

There is simply no “disagreeing with the church” in the first group of Bishops unless someone can point to which teaching and when they disagree with it?

It is the second group of Bishops that is disagreeing with clear explicit church teaching and violating anathemas of a binding ecumenical council on the basis of following what they believe to be the current pope’s private wishes which even he has not dared put in any explicit form as a valid church position.

 

[pnewton]

If the church is the church, this period and its innovations will not only be undone in the future but its proponents will be consined to the same corner of our history as Arius, Nestorius, Honorius and the rest. If the church is not the church, and adultery can be adultery and not adultery at once, then I will be a happy Buddhist. At least that will allow me to believe that Jesus was a great enlightened one teaching in the traditions of the judaeic world.

A situation can objectively be adultery but with reduce (in some cases no) culpability. A person can objectively be in an adulterous relationship, and still be in a state of grace.

Like the slippery slope, evoking all these boogeymen may be illustrative, but only to those who agree with you.

There is a third option. You might be mistaken. It is usually the last thing most people think of in this day when everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Rather than abandoning the Church over this issue, you could always exercise your conscience and simply refrain from receiving communion, if you are in this situation, live as sister and brother, or separate. In no application of Amoris Laetitia so far proposed is there any obligation to behave contrary to one’s conscience.

Also, lest it be lost in this merger, I did not defend the Malta proposal. In fact, I expressed some reservations, but will let the Holy Father work it out.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There can be more than one practice that is doctrinally acceptable. Therefore, even when there is a practice based on doctrine, a new practice can be given, as long as it too does not contradict an established doctrine.

Fr Gerald Murray has written regarding the Maltese guidelines:

Thus Maltese Catholics who are living in an adulterous second marriage are now being told by their bishops that they can engage in gravely sinful behavior that is publicly known and not be denied Holy Communion when they “acknowledge and believe” that they are “at peace with God.”

thecatholicthing.org/2017/01/18/meltdown-in-malta/

Does this not contradict what you reference as “established doctrine”?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ed Pentin at NCRegister:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/contradictions-between-maltese-directive-and-cdfs-1994-letter-on-divorced-r

"To see just how much this is true, it’s perhaps helpful to put the controversial passages of the directive beside these documents.

The most striking contrast is with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1994 Letter to bishops “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful.”

Of particular note is how both diverge when it comes to the matter of individual conscience in allowing, or not allowing, remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion (in bold)."

Go to link to see comparison.
I am not a theologian, would never claim to be. But i do not see this circle getting squared.

Also just read this from the Bishops of Kazakhstan:
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5356/bishops_of_kazakhstan_issue_appeal_to_prayer_with_concerns_about_misuses_of_al.aspx

Powerful plea here for prayer by the Faithful. Sound advice for us all.

From second article:

Three bishops of Kazakhstan—Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana; Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda; and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana—have issued an “Appeal to prayer” in response to certain publications made “in some particular churches” of “norms” for the application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia that allow “the divorced who have attempted civil marriage with a new partner, notwithstanding the sacramental bond by which they are joined to their legitimate spouse” to be "admitted to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist without fulfilling the duty, established by God, of ceasing to violate the bond of their existing sacramental marriage."

After presenting in detail many of the “truths and doctrines that the Catholic Church has continually taught” about the indissolubility of marriage, the appeal notes, “Notwithstanding repeated declarations concerning the immutability of the teaching of the Church concerning divorce, several particular churches nowadays accept divorce in their sacramental practice, and the phenomenon is growing.” Further, the three bishops point to “the ineffectiveness of numerous appeals made privately and in a discreet manner to Pope Francis both by many faithful and by some Shepherds of the Church,” which they say has forced them "to make this urgent appeal to prayer. As successors of the Apostles, we are also moved by the obligation of raising our voices when the most sacred things of the Church and the matter of eternal salvation of souls are in question."

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5356/bishops_of_kazakhstan_issue_appeal_to_prayer_with_concerns_about_misuses_of_al.aspx

(Bold text my emphases)

 

[Vico]

Several things:

1. Single people cannot commit adultery without the involvement of a married person. The fact is, by accusing someone of adultery who remarries, the Lord cannot be speaking of fornication which is the sin of pre-marital sex but of adultery, the sin of extra-marital sex, which requires at least one party to already be married to someone else. Don’t think there is a big confusion there.
2. Divorce is real only to human eyes. If it was real to God then there would be no adultery at all as this person would have “married” as opposed to having illicit sex. It is precisely because it is IMPOSSIBLE to “put asunder what God has put together” that any idea of a sin of adultery arises. The Lord says that these people are still married to the persons they have purported to civilly put away. There is of course a difference between legalities and ontological realities as seen by God. Our faith does not recognize ANY divorce of a valid sacramental marriage as ontologically real, just civil necessities. So I think this debate over the words “impossible” is one of semantics and not substance. Every Catholic who knows anything about their faith must surely understand what I mean by saying the divorce isn’t actually real.
3. There is no way a person who remarries is coerced to do so in the same way a person with a gun to his head is. …unless you are talking about an actual forced marriage which is illegal in almost all countries on earth and which is a legal and religious nullity: marriage cannot happen without the consent of the parties. Yet I suspect that is not what you are talking about. An innocent spouse cannot be forced to commit adultery even though they can be caused to by being put in the position where they would even consider it in the first place, such as loneliness. But they would still be free to choose to do so.
4. The remarried are not permitted communion only because of adultery, not divorce. Those divorced but not remarried are free to receive communion. Adultery could not be imputed to those who remarried if they were not still married to their first spouse. It is because they are that the church requires them to cease sexual activity with their present ‘spouse’ because the church doesn’t recognize this present ‘spouse’ or ‘marriage’ as real as long as the first one is held to be valid.

Two other caveats to add:

• There is also adultery in the sense of a single one seriously planning an affair with a married one, even without knowing or approaching, which is adultery in the heart; it is indulged in through thoughts.
• Also a non consummated sacramental marriage may be dissolved.
• A person that repents of* their* sin of adultery, may be forced to material adultery through the coercion of their legally married spouse.

 

[TMC]

This is a mischaracterization of the state of affairs. How is this person “disagreeing with the church” on this issue? The very debate here is WHAT the church is actually teaching.

We have clear teaching from Trent and previous popes (and frankly Jesus and the apostles) and an ambiguous phrase from the current pope whose private positions are known to lean on one side.

You have clear disagreements among Bishops who stand with the clear perennial teaching and bishops who are teaching something different based on the pope’s ambiguous phrasing. You have a pope who has chosen the strategy of silence.

There is simply no “disagreeing with the church” in the first group of Bishops unless someone can point to which teaching and when they disagree with it?

It is the second group of Bishops that is disagreeing with clear explicit church teaching and violating anathemas of a binding ecumenical council on the basis of following what they believe to be the current pope’s private wishes which even he has not dared put in any explicit form as a valid church position.

I guess we have to disagree over what it means to disagree. I read the poster as disagreeing with AL, or at least with the way AL has been implemented.

I don’t agree that the Pope has adopted a strategy of silence. He wrote AL. He deputized Cardinal Kasper to explain it; and he affirmed that the Argentinians are implementing it correctly. That is not silence. That speaks volumes, for those that choose to hear it.

 

[billy15]

I guess we have to disagree over what it means to disagree. I read the poster as disagreeing with AL, or at least with the way AL has been implemented.

I don’t agree that the Pope has adopted a strategy of silence. He wrote AL. He deputized Cardinal Kasper to explain it; and he affirmed that the Argentinians are implementing it correctly. That is not silence. That speaks volumes, for those that choose to hear it.

That’s the thing though; AL is being implemented in radically different ways. You have Archbishops Chaput and Sample, Bishop Conley, the Albertan bishops, and others on one side, and then you have Cardinal Kasper, Bishop McElroy, Bishop Elbs, the Bishops of Malta, and others on the opposite side. Who is correct? I agree with the former group; the bishops of Kazakhstan summed things up really nicely with quotes of many relevant documents that have been cited by myself, Abyssinia, Vico, and others.

Also, that response to the Argentinians was a leaked personal letter, not an act of the Magisterium. There is still silence on the correct interpretation, because bishops are still releasing contradictory guidelines. This is why, at the very least, the first question of the dubia necessitates an answer.

 

[Ginny89]

I guess we have to disagree over what it means to disagree. I read the poster as disagreeing with AL, or at least with the way AL has been implemented.

I don’t agree that the Pope has adopted a strategy of silence. He wrote AL. He deputized Cardinal Kasper to explain it; and he affirmed that the Argentinians are implementing it correctly. That is not silence. That speaks volumes, for those that choose to hear it.

It certainly speaks volumes as to the current pope’s private leanings and positions. For those for whom following the pope’s private wishes is the definition of catholicism, I suppose that would be definitive. But for those for whom the churchs positions are those taught in the manner established, clearly and explicitly, it is just a sad period, like many others in the past.

 

[pnewton]

Does this not contradict what you reference as “established doctrine”?

I am glad you quoted me. The reason I used that phrase was because I do not think it is established doctrine that one in a second marriage without an annulment cannot receive communion. I think is an age old practice based on doctrine and practicality. One think I look for in the future is the question of worthiness to receive communion (in an absolute sense, as in no exceptions are possible) to go from the perceived objective state to whether one is in a state of grace.

I used the word “perceived”, as the first question that must be answered is whether it is possible allow communion for one with an invalid first marriage, but where an annulment fails, or cannot be obtained. I think most, even more traditional people, can see where this would not contradict any actual doctrine.

The latter is more complicated, and I understand the disagreement. However, if the person can be in a state of grace (the million dollar question), then there is nothing doctrinally prohibiting communion.

 

[graciew]

It certainly speaks volumes as to the current pope’s private leanings and positions. For those for whom following the pope’s private wishes is the definition of catholicism, I suppose that would be definitive. But for those for whom the churchs positions are those taught in the manner established, clearly and explicitly, it is just a sad period, like many others in the past.

Ginny,do not make assumptions and accusations about the Pope’s "private leanings and positions "or "private wishes "whatever private anything because you are clueless.
Back off.
He is our Pope.