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

[Abba]

In whatever situation we find ourselves, may “we never lose heart because of our limitations, or ever stop seeing that fullness of love and communion which God holds out before us,” as the Holy Father’s document states.

The Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter knows very well the ways in which God has provided love and the fullness of communion to us, and in gratitude and joy, we proclaim that same communion to others. It is our never-ending vocation to bear witness to the good news of Jesus Christ crucified and risen again. The Christian knows that death is not the final word, but rather resurrection, for God brings good from evil and life from death. As we navigate the joy and pain of family life, including obstacles and challenges that seem, at times, insurmountable, we know that we have a Savior who has gone ahead of us, has suffered as we have, and promises that nothing can separate us from his love and mercy.

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

 

[Ginny89]

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.

You back off. Who said he is not the pope? The nerve of some people. I have not even spoken of the details of these private leanings whereas others have pointed to personal letters and to cardinals like Kasper as being representative of the pope’s position but you clearly have no problem with them. I have merely categorized these as private and not publicly taught teachings which is a little thing we like to call FACT. I dont know who you think you are but you are sorely mistaken if you think you are going to bully me. SMH.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

Someone in a second marriage without an annulment can receive Communion, if they live as brother and sister with their spouse.

In regards to your question in your second paragraph, you state about the marriage being invalid but that an annulment can not be given. But how could it be known that the marriage is invalid if there is not proof to determine it to be? If the tribunal can not give an annulment then presumably there was either not enough evidence presented to determine the validity of the marriage or the evidence actually revealed that the marriage was valid, and therefore an annulment cannot be given in either scenario?

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Guys, I think we need to avoid getting personal like the plague if we don’t want this very interesting thread shut down.

If a poster gets personal with me I just ignore it - everyone can see it doesn’t contribute to the discussion, so why react? And if he says something that I think is off the reservation I never feel a need to tack labels on him. Much more worthwhile to analyse what he says.

Can we all do this? Otherwise we will just lose an opportunity for some very useful (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Ginny89]

Guys, I think we need to avoid getting personal like the plague if we don’t want this very interesting thread shut down.

If a poster gets personal with me I just ignore it - everyone can see it doesn’t contribute to the discussion, so why react? And if he says something that I think is off the reservation I never feel a need to tack labels on him. Much more worthwhile to analyse what he says.

Can we all do this? Otherwise we will just lose an opportunity for some very useful (name removed by moderator)ut.

I guess this was about me. I apologize for my reaction. I would not want any conversations to be shut down because of me or for this thread to be closed. I will just ignore personal jabs from now on.

 

[JPUSC]

I guess this was about me. I apologize for my reaction. I would not want any conversations to be shut down because of me or for this thread to be closed. I will just ignore personal jabs from now on.

Don’t worry, I’m on your side.

 

[JPUSC]

You back off. Who said he is not the pope? The nerve of some people. I have not even spoken of the details of these private leanings whereas others have pointed to personal letters and to cardinals like Kasper as being representative of the pope’s position but you clearly have no problem with them. I have merely categorized these as private and not publicly taught teachings which is a little thing we like to call FACT. I dont know who you think you are but you are sorely mistaken if you think you are going to bully me. SMH.

 

[JPUSC]

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.

How rude.

 

[Abba]

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.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Thomas_White]

While I cannot find a thing wrong with defending the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, can we all just please calm down before the thread is closed? Justin is right about this.

 

[pnewton]

Someone in a second marriage without an annulment can receive Communion, if they live as brother and sister with their spouse.

In regards to your question in your second paragraph, you state about the marriage being invalid but that an annulment can not be given. But how could it be known that the marriage is invalid if there is not proof to determine it to be?

There are times people know things without there being evidence. I may know my spouse cheated on me, or told me he would do good to last a year, but I may not have evidence of this. How can the Church know? It can’t, which brings us to why a person cannot receive communion. If it is because of the objective state of the marriage situation, then the annulment does not affect that. It only judges that. If it is because of the subjective state of the soul, then that too is no affected by the annulment, if a person is aware his current marriage is his only valid one.

Now a person can deceive himself (herself). So the Church has rules that do not allow an individual to make this self-determination. It might be best, but it is not an issue of doctrine. I would think in this scenario a priest would also consider the possibility of self-deception and help the person dig out the details and facts.

I think this issue is the easy to understand. Also, I think the couple that attempts to live as husband and wife, even if constantly need forgiveness, and striving to grow in strength, is an easier situation to understand. This I think was technically possible before Amoris Laetitia, but most of the traditional posters here shot it down in the past. The idea was that once one failed “too much” then living in an near occasion of sin should prohibit communion.

Then there is the toughy, as in the one with the most disagreement.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

We cannot read scholastic concepts and analysis into the NT phraseology or words of course. In fact we cannot even be sure that the word “adultery” on Jesus’s lips has the same meaning as it does on ours.
But I think it is fairly clear that the passive voice for the woman put away is significant and it certainly doesn’t mean she is more at fault than her husband who married again. And the man who marries her also appears to have as much guilt as the one who put her away.

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.

Greek was admittedly not my best subject when doing Biblical exegesis of the NT but poor as I was even I recognised that passive voice is very significant in these situations.
It is not making a thing about the woman’s culpability at all by my take, if anything the opposite. Women were relatively powerless when it came to marriage and divorce in Hebrew society, a woman could not legally put away a man and remarry (even if she had the money to do so). It was quite OK for the male to do so. Reduced choices equals reduced culpability?
In Gentile society women had more legal status/assets and the Gospel written for this audience extend Jesus’s words to prohibit women divorcing husbands (eg Mk 10:12)

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

A quick look at the Fathers suggests this was never a mainstream interpretation but it does appear valid so far as Jewish customs/law was concerned. There are still faint reflections of this even in today’s Catholic teaching on divorce. A state of divorce is objectively still at odds with Jesus’s teaching on marriage. We don’t call it adultery but it is still a sinful state that must be taken to confession for one time “fixing” even by the innocent “put away” party who never remarries. However it is not in any way a culpable offence - but it is still a “sinful state” that seems to require Confession for exiting.

 

[MaryT777]

This was a well written article; thanks for the link.

I do believe anything we can do to offer care for the divorced and remarried is a step forward. I did receive a declaration of nullity from the Church, it came to my attention that my Pastor had told another couple who had divorced and remarried to use their conscience to discern if they could Commune. Therefore there are priests already telling people such.

I asked him about it and he said we need Pastoral care for those remarried for they are leaving the Church instead of going through the process of an “annulment.”

Anyways just a few personal words and may God guide the church regarding this issue.

Mary.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. 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

I’ll call “garbage” on that one has pNewton would say .

1. The remarried are not permitted communion only because of adultery, not divorce. Those divorced but not remarried are free to receive communion.

This is not so clear methinks.
Divorce is likely a “sinful state” (“tolerated” in some cases), even for the innocent party who, while not culpable of the offence, still contracts a sinful state through the fault of the one who put her away. Not as grave as remarriage of course, nor an ongoing state once “fixed” by a single Reconciliation.

It is because they are [still married] that the church requires them to cease sexual activity with their present ‘spouse’ because the church doesnt recognize this present ‘spouse’ or ‘marriage’ as real as long as the first one is held to be valid.

Not so sure about this at all.
Better Catholic phraseology might be “It is because they are presumed still married”.
And “the church doesn’t recognize this present ‘spouse’ or ‘marriage’ as licit…”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

I believe you mean “permissible”…and only up until recently when Pope Francis’s directives raised the possibility of permissibility in cases that meet the criteria he stated.

I personally think of this pastoral initiative as a form of theological “discussion” or “enquiry” by praxis.
By “doing” we will in 20 or 50 years better know which way the HS wants this to conclude.
And I am sure God has no problems with that.
Time is greater than space.This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results.

 

[Vico]

I believe you mean “permissible”…and only up until recently when Pope Francis’s directives raised the possibility of permissibility in cases that meet the criteria he stated.

I personally think of this pastoral initiative as a form of theological “discussion” or “enquiry” by praxis.
By “doing” we will in 20 or 50 years better know which way the HS wants this to conclude.
And I am sure God has no problems with that.
Time is greater than space.This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results.

Acceptable: “capable or worthy of being accepted”.

A person that is invincibly ignorant of a grave material sin will not know to confess it.

“Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable.”
Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

 

[_Abyssinia]

There are times people know things without there being evidence. I may know my spouse cheated on me, or told me he would do good to last a year, but I may not have evidence of this. How can the Church know? It can’t, which brings us to why a person cannot receive communion. If it is because of the objective state of the marriage situation, then the annulment does not affect that. It only judges that. If it is because of the subjective state of the soul, then that too is no affected by the annulment, if a person is aware his current marriage is his only valid one.

Now a person can deceive himself (herself). So the Church has rules that do not allow an individual to make this self-determination. It might be best, but it is not an issue of doctrine. I would think in this scenario a priest would also consider the possibility of self-deception and help the person dig out the details and facts.

I think this issue is the easy to understand. Also, I think the couple that attempts to live as husband and wife, even if constantly need forgiveness, and striving to grow in strength, is an easier situation to understand. This I think was technically possible before Amoris Laetitia, but most of the traditional posters here shot it down in the past. The idea was that once one failed “too much” then living in an near occasion of sin should prohibit communion.

Then there is the toughy, as in the one with the most disagreement.

How is being cheated on or the spouse saying “he would do good” examples which could make a marriage invalid? For example, if a a couple gets married and the wife or husband cheats on him or her a year into the marriage, I don’t see how that would make the marriage invalid because that cheating has nothing to do with the original intention as to why they got married.

There already exists a process in place to establish the validity of the marriage, that is the tribunal. Not everybody is going to get the the decision that they had a invalid marriage. That is just a fact. Not everybody is going to be able to be allowed to receive Communion in a state of grace if they do not live as brother and sister with their spouse. There are couples who live live likes this right now. They need the help of the Church and support but it has to be accepted that not everybody who is divorced and remarried is going to be able to be able to receive Communion, not if they choose to have a sexual relationship with their spouse.

 

[TMC]

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.

Apostolic Exhortations and Papal teachings are not “private wishes.” The Pope is teaching. Some do not like the lesson, but that does not reduce his authority to teach.

 

[TMC]

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.

Homogenity is overrated. The Church is working through the application of this teaching. Like most teachings, it will not be applied identically to all situations and people. The Pope is helping the Church grow in faith and understanding, which is often a messy process, as are most things in life.