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

[philipl]

Amoris Laetitia is much more nuanced than that. It certainly does not open up the possibility of pastors encouraging someone who has been divorced and civilly remarried to continue sexual relations with the current “partner.” What it does encourage is a process of re-integration into Church life in new and creative ways that does not necessarily terminate in the reception of the Eucharist. It also encourages a process of accompaniment whereby those living in “irregular unions” are gradually led to embrace the fullness of the gospel of the Family. Only in rare cases does it leave open the possibility of admitting someone living in an “irregular union” to the Eucharist. And that in a footnote.

As PNewton pointed out, this is not “permission” to do so. There is a huge distinction between possibility and permission.

But I have read several articles written by men that have a much deeper understanding of this document than anyone on this board. There are cardinals that are 100% positive they understand exactly what the Pope is saying and yet none of them agree with each other.

How hard would it be for the Pope to just tell the flock what he means? Its just not that difficult. This argument is getting old, even here people claim to be 100% right and understand exactly what the Pope means and yet this argument has gone on and on. So no you DONT understand and you have no idea what the Pope means because no one know, except the Pope.

 

[Thomas_White]

But I have read several articles written by men that have a much deeper understanding of this document than anyone on this board. There are cardinals that are 100% positive they understand exactly what the Pope is saying and yet none of them agree with each other.

Here’s the rub: I would suggest it isn’t that they don’t understand the document.

How hard would it be for the Pope to just tell the flock what he means?

Why suppose he hasn’t? I would suggest the gray area is not in the document but in its application. I further believe this is intentional and concerns discernment.

 

[pnewton]

There have been serious theologians and clergy who are very learned about doctrine and discipline who have expressed real concern with Amoris Laetitia. The CDF issued a number of things that they wanted corrected in Amoris Laetitia. I think this is very complicated. The concern that some people on this forum are expressing is just emblematic of larger concern.

There has always been disagreement, since the very first council and Jerusalem. There are actually very few who have expressed disagreement or concern, considering the size of the Church. As to the concern of the people here, this place is hardly indicative of the Church. I have long known that this place is very conservative, on the whole.

 

[Randolph]

But I have read several articles written by men that have a much deeper understanding of this document than anyone on this board. There are cardinals that are 100% positive they understand exactly what the Pope is saying and yet none of them agree with each other.

How hard would it be for the Pope to just tell the flock what he means? Its just not that difficult. This argument is getting old, even here people claim to be 100% right and understand exactly what the Pope means and yet this argument has gone on and on. So no you DONT understand and you have no idea what the Pope means because no one know, except the Pope.

Great post. Thank you. After all said and done, the real issue remains to be the ambiguity in AL. I believe that, until a papal clarification is issued (either from Pope Francis himself or from his successors), it will not be settled.

Lastly, I find it curious that while Pope Francis has not been exactly shy in expressing his opinions, but yet in this case he has steadfastly refused to clarify an ambiguity in his own writing that has caused confusion and division in the Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

In light of the Argentine Bishops Draft Guidelines, I do not see why a further clarification of AL is necessary. Here are the relevant portions of those Guidelines:

"5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple
make it feasible, especially when both are
Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to
propose that they make the effort of living in
continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the
difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves
open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of
Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf.
note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John
Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).

“6) In other, more complex circumstances, and
when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of
nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in
fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible
to undertake a journey of discernment. If one
arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case,
there are limitations that diminish responsibility
and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a
person judges that he would fall into a subsequent
fault by damaging the children of the new union,
Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access
to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the
Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn
dispose the person to continue maturing and
growing with the aid of grace.”

The language is plain, clear and unambiguous: “Amoris Laetitia open up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”. In praising the Argentine Bishops Guidelines, Pope Francis said they were accurate and in accordance with AL.

I would suggest AL is a very significant advancement in the understanding of doctrine, and so much so that the full realization of this will only occur in time. But I can also see why no further clarification of AL is necessary. However, I also believe implementation of AL will prove very problematic for some extended period of time.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Bravo to Cardinal Muller.

 

[Randolph]

In light of the Argentine Bishops Draft Guidelines, I do not see why a further clarification of AL is necessary. Here are the relevant portions of those Guidelines:

"5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple
make it feasible, especially when both are
Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to
propose that they make the effort of living in
continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the
difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves
open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of
Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf.
note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John
Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).

“6) In other, more complex circumstances, and
when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of
nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in
fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible
to undertake a journey of discernment. If one
arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case,
there are limitations that diminish responsibility
and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a
person judges that he would fall into a subsequent
fault by damaging the children of the new union,
Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access
to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the
Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn
dispose the person to continue maturing and
growing with the aid of grace.”

The language is plain, clear and unambiguous: “Amoris Laetitia open up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”. In praising the Argentine Bishops Guidelines, Pope Francis said they were accurate and in accordance with AL.

I would suggest AL is a very significant advancement in the understanding of doctrine, and so much so that the full realization of this will only occur in time. But I can also see why no further clarification of AL is necessary. However, I also believe implementation of AL will prove very problematic for some extended period of time.

I really hope that you are right. I wish that I also have your confidence… There are many conferences in the world… Will bishops and priests actually follow the guidelines? What about one guideline is so vastly different from another that one guideline says “yes” while the other says “no”? Will individual conscience with accompaniment supersede the guidelines? What about the lack of repentance and sin no more issue? Why was a development of a doctrine written in an exhortation with an ambiguous footnote? What exactly was the development? How does the new accompaniment differ from current accompaniment? What about the “generous” priests and bishops who feel the guidelines should be interpreted with great generosity?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

There have been serious theologians and clergy who are very learned about doctrine and discipline who have expressed real concern with Amoris Laetitia. The CDF issued a number of things that they wanted corrected in Amoris Laetitia. I think this is very complicated. The concern that some people on this forum are expressing is just emblematic of larger concern.

That is true. Many phenomenal theologians and clergy have expressed concern over the document. But the opposite is also true. Many phenomenal theologians and clergy have voiced no concern whatsoever, and many have also come out with full-blown support and enthusiasm for such a document. Disagreement among theologians and clergy is nothing new in the history of the Church. Heck two Doctors of the Church - Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure - are known to have disagreed with one another.

The CDF never issued a number of things they wanted corrected. The news reports state that they submitted suggestions for clarification of potentially problematic areas in the text. Each suggestion was denied. What these suggestions were, no one knows except those in the CDF who submitted them. It’s best not to speculate on the unknown in this case.

 

[_Abyssinia]

That is true. Many phenomenal theologians and clergy have expressed concern over the document. But the opposite is also true. Many phenomenal theologians and clergy have voiced no concern whatsoever, and many have also come out with full-blown support and enthusiasm for such a document. Disagreement among theologians and clergy is nothing new in the history of the Church. Heck two Doctors of the Church - Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure - are known to have disagreed with one another.

The CDF never issued a number of things they wanted corrected. The news reports state that they submitted suggestions for clarification of potentially problematic areas in the text. Each suggestion was denied. What these suggestions were, no one knows except those in the CDF who submitted them. It’s best not to speculate on the unknown in this case.

No, I don’t think that is correct. The CDF requested corrections to Amoris Latetia.

 

[JimG]

By “validly married” do you mean “putatively validly married” as discovered by a fallible human court at any given point in time (which may change)?
Or do you mean the “marriage bond” as is seen by God (which is certain and holds until death once discovered)?

I mean the permanent marriage bond incurred at the exchange of vows. No one can read the mind of God, or of another person. But we presume that people mean what they say when they recite vows, and treat a marriage as valid unless shown to be not valid from the start.

I don’t think that A.L. authorizes individual pastors or individual laypeople to replace a tribunal in making a decision as to validity of a marriage, but perhaps that is also in dispute or ambiguous.

 

[graciew]

No, I don’t think that is correct. The CDF requested corrections to Amoris Latetia.

" When possible make a U turn,make a U turn!" That is what what my GPS says at times when I get lost….

Cardinal Muller is the Prefect of the CDF.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I mean the permanent marriage bond incurred at the exchange of vows. No one can read the mind of God, or of another person. But we presume that people mean what they say when they recite vows, and treat a marriage as valid unless shown to be not valid from the start.

I don’t think that A.L. authorizes individual pastors or individual laypeople to replace a tribunal in making a decision as to validity of a marriage, but perhaps that is also in dispute or ambiguous.

Can you quote the parts of AL or ADraft that suggests ambiguity to you re endorsement of individuals making a decision that would replace that of a Tribunal?

Correct me if I am wrong but Tribunals don’t make decisions as to validity but only to invalidity. Therefore inability to discover invalidity does not mean that it cannot be found at a later date if, for example, the party at fault later agrees to cooperate and provide evidence .

 

[philipl]

Here’s the rub: I would suggest it isn’t that they don’t understand the document.

And what qualifies you to say they dont understand the document?

Why suppose he hasn’t? I would suggest the gray area is not in the document but in its application. I further believe this is intentional and concerns discernment.

Here’s another way people love to use to promote their position. , It goes something like this "If you do some (research, thinking, praying) you will come to (realized, understand, agree) that you’re wrong and (insert name/title, position, here) is right. And if you don’t start to (realized, understand, agree) then do some more (research, thinking, praying)
if that doesn’t work, then you’re (intolerant, lacking in faith, legalistic, hardhearted, the list can go on and on and on and on). This is the way all liberal/progressives, elitist think.

Here is what I know, four cardinals who must have some understanding of church teaching or they wouldn’t be cardinals have in fact asked for clarification.

Why not clarify? Has the church turned into what anti-catholics have been claiming for centuries?

 

[JimG]

Can you quote the parts of AL or ADraft that suggests ambiguity to you re endorsement of individuals making a decision that would replace that of a Tribunal?

Correct me if I am wrong but Tribunals don’t make decisions as to validity but only to invalidity. Therefore inability to discover invalidity does not mean that it cannot be found at a later date if, for example, the party at fault later agrees to cooperate and provide evidence .

Of course invalidity could be discovered at a later date, and I presume that a subsequent tribunal could therefore overturn the decision of a prior tribunal based on new evidence.

But if no invalidity has been found by a tribunal, then the marriage remains presumptively valid. My concern in such a case is that those in a subsequent, presumptively invalid, marriage, would not be advised to receive the Eucharist while continuing to have sexual relations.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Here is what I know, four cardinals who must have some understanding of church teaching or they wouldn’t be cardinals have in fact asked for clarification.

Why not clarify? Has the church turned into what anti-catholics have been claiming for centuries?

Four cardinals out of 227 have asked for clarification. Burke has indicated that there are “a few” others who are (privately) concerned. It seems to me, the vast majority of Cardinals and bishops - “who must have some understanding of Church teaching or they wouldn’t be cardinals” - are not concerned about the document.

Why not clarify? It’s a fair question. I can’t speak on behalf of the Pope, but it seems to me the Cardinals are asking for black and white yes/no answers to questions that the Pope himself has said no black and white answer exists (cf. p. 304 and 305 of AL.)

 

[Thomas_White]

And what qualifies you to say they dont understand the document?

Huh?

To say “I would suggest it isn’t that they don’t understand the document” is not to say they don’t understand the document. Beyond that, It was only a suggestion or opinion about something that I cannot in fact know.

 

[Thomas_White]

Of course invalidity could be discovered at a later date, and I presume that a subsequent tribunal could therefore overturn the decision of a prior tribunal based on new evidence.

But if no invalidity has been found by a tribunal, then the marriage remains presumptively valid. My concern in such a case is that those in a subsequent, presumptively invalid, marriage, would not be advised to receive the Eucharist while continuing to have sexual relations.

As I understand it, there are strict time limits for appealing the judgment of a tribunal, and there can be no such thing as a subsequent tribunal. A tribunal’s decision is final. The only recourse is then an appeal to the Roman Rota, but this also must be accomplished within a short and strict time limit.

However, it appears AL opens another possibility.

 

[pnewton]

Four cardinals out of 227 have asked for clarification. Burke has indicated that there are “a few” others who are (privately) concerned. It seems to me, the vast majority of Cardinals and bishops - “who must have some understanding of Church teaching or they wouldn’t be cardinals” - are not concerned about the document.

If a teacher instructs a class of thirty on a topic and two students fail to understand the lesson, I wouldn’t blame the teacher, nor expect her to re-teach the lesson to the class. It should be sufficient to teach the two individually, or let peers or parents cover it.

I am not going to assume either way if these Cardinals do not understand Amoris Laetitia, or do not want to accept it. That is between them and the Pope.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

If a teacher instructs a class of thirty on a topic and two students fail to understand the lesson, I wouldn’t blame the teacher, nor expect her to re-teach the lesson to the class. It should be sufficient to teach the two individually, or let peers or parents cover it.

I am not going to assume either way if these Cardinals do not understand Amoris Laetitia, or do not want to accept it. That is between them and the Pope.

 

[philipl]

Four cardinals out of 227 have asked for clarification. Burke has indicated that there are “a few” others who are (privately) concerned. It seems to me, the vast majority of Cardinals and bishops - “who must have some understanding of Church teaching or they wouldn’t be cardinals” - are not concerned about the document.

Why not clarify? It’s a fair question. I can’t speak on behalf of the Pope, but it seems to me the Cardinals are asking for black and white yes/no answers to questions that the Pope himself has said no black and white answer exists (cf. p. 304 and 305 of AL.)

In communication it is not the job of the listener to understand nor the reader. Its the job of the speaker or writer