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

[_Abyssinia]

Indeed, the matter is settled.

Pope Francis stated in the letter that “there is no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than that contained in the document drafted by the bishops of Buenos Aires, a text which, according to the Osservatore Romano report, leaves open the possibility in some cases of the acceptance of sexually-active unmarried couples receiving the Holy Eucharist.

aleteia.org/2016/09/13/vatican-confirms-pope-francis-letter-to-argentine-bishops-on-amoris-laetitia-is-authentic

He was asked whether there were any real new possibilities for access to the sacraments that did not exist prior to the publication of the “Amoris Laetitia” encyclical. “I could say “yes” and leave it at that”, Francis had replied. “But that would be too brief a response. I recommend that all of you read the presentation made by Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian.”

…the document issued by the bishops of Buenos Aires “is very good and fully captures the meaning of chapter VIII of the ‘Amoris Laetitia’. There are no other interpretations. I am sure it will do much good”.

lastampa.it/2016/09/12/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/pope-francis-on-the-correct-interpretation-of-the-amoris-laetitia-3BCM11NC8042x26J6mQfeP/pagina.html

Is that letter dogma? Because since that letter was released, there is still not a united front on the part of the clergy in regards to interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and the divorced and remarried and Holy Communion?

Bishop Paprocki had writtten in a column which was published in July 2016, I believe before Pope Francis’ letter was released:

As I explained in my statement about the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis on April 8, the date it was issued, “There are no changes to canon law or church doctrine introduced in this document.” I addressed this conclusion in greater detail in my column in our diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Times, on May 1, explaining that in-flight press conferences on an airplane, apostolic exhortations and footnotes “by their very nature are not vehicles for introducing or amending legislative texts or making dogmatic pronouncements.”

sj-r.com/entertainmentlife/20160715/bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-catholics-marriage-and-holy-communion

If those sorts of things are not dogma, then is this letter also not dogma? The thing is, what is talked about in the letter that you cite about the Sacraments… what circumstances would the couple be in?

 

[Thomas_White]

Indeed, the matter is settled.

Pope Francis stated in the letter that “there is no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitiaother than that contained in the document drafted by the bishops of Buenos Aires, a text which, according to the Osservatore Romano report, leaves open the possibility in some cases of the acceptance of sexually-active unmarried couples receiving the Holy Eucharist.

aleteia.org/2016/09/13/vatican-confirms-pope-francis-letter-to-argentine-bishops-on-amoris-laetitia-is-authentic

The matter is indeed settled: “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who was tasked by the Pope to present Amoris Laetitia, said it does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine…”

See Chapter 2, Section 8 of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: “For there is a growth in the realities and the words which have been handed down…the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”

The fullness of divine truth will only be revealed at the end of time and the Last Judgment.

 

[JPUSC]

The matter is indeed settled: “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who was tasked by the Pope to present Amoris Laetitia, said it does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine…”

See Chapter 2, Section 8 of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: “For there is a growth in the realities and the words which have been handed down…the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”

The fullness of divine truth will only be revealed at the end of time and the Last Judgment.

Indeed.

“In that presentation your question will have the answer,” concluded the Pope.

In his presentation of the Exhortation, Cardinal Schonborn said:

Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Benedict had already said that “easy recipes” do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84) (AL 298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 205). He also reminds us of an important phrase from Evangelii gaudium, 44: “A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 304). In the sense of this “via caritatis” (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given “in certain cases”. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: “I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (EG 44), and the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (EG 47).

Is it an excessive challenge for pastors, for spiritual guides and for communities if the “discernment of situations” is not regulated more precisely? Pope Francis acknowledges this concern: “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion” (AL 308). However, he challenges this, remarking that “We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning and real significance. That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel” (AL 311).

zenit.org/articles/cardinal-schonborns-intervention-at-presentation-of-amoris-laetitia

 

[_Abyssinia]

Indeed.

“In that presentation your question will have the answer,” concluded the Pope.

In his presentation of the Exhortation, Cardinal Schonborn said:

Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Benedict had already said that “easy recipes” do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84) (AL 298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 205). He also reminds us of an important phrase from Evangelii gaudium, 44: “A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 304). In the sense of this “via caritatis” (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given “in certain cases”. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: “I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (EG 44), and the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (EG 47).

Is it an excessive challenge for pastors, for spiritual guides and for communities if the “discernment of situations” is not regulated more precisely? Pope Francis acknowledges this concern: “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion” (AL 308). However, he challenges this, remarking that “We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning and real significance. That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel” (AL 311).

zenit.org/articles/cardinal-schonborns-intervention-at-presentation-of-amoris-laetitia

The text you made in bold is interesting because 351 could be interpreted differently by different people. To one, those “certain cases” may only refer to those who are living in continence, to another, they may take the view that “certain cases” could also refer to those not living in continence.

Again, one divorced and remarried may go into one parish and be able to receive Holy Communion, go to a different parish and not be able to receive Holy Communion because there is a different interpretation of what particular passages in Amoris Latetia mean.

What Amoris Latetia says in 351 in regards to “certain cases” could be interpreted very differently by different people.

 

[JPUSC]

Is that letter dogma? Because since that letter was released, there is still not a united front on the part of the clergy in regards to interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and the divorced and remarried and Holy Communion?

Bishop Paprocki had writtten in a column which was published in July 2016, I believe before Pope Francis’ letter was released:

sj-r.com/entertainmentlife/20160715/bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-catholics-marriage-and-holy-communion

If those sorts of things are not dogma, then is this letter also not dogma? The thing is, what is talked about in the letter that you cite about the Sacraments… what circumstances would the couple be in?

A united front won’t be necessary. The practice will be decided by region.

By saying that the implementation of his document “Amoris Laetitia” depended on the guidelines of local bishops, he has decentralized resolution of the debate over Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Towards the end of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s document on the family, the pontiff writes that when priests have to make judgments in concrete cases such as pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, they are to do so “according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.”

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/09/25/communion-debate-pope-francis-opts-decentralization

The bishops of Buenos Aires have interpreted that in some cases, “Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist” for the divorced and remarried and the Pope has agreed with their interpretation saying, "there are no further interpretations.”

 

[OraLabora]

But Cardinal Muller is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and he says that there is no permission granted for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion.

No permission granted is not the same as saying that there are no rare occasions where applying the letter of the law would do violence to its spirit.

Saying an ambulance can exceed the speed limit to save a life is not “granting permission” to speed, it is instead a discernment that an emergency vehicle speeding to save a life is in fact consistent with the law which applies speed limits to save lives.

AL does not grant “permission” to the D&R to receive communion. The law prohibiting it in almost all circumstances still stands, as does the doctrine on marriage.

AL simply recognizes that on rare occasions where moreover culpability is minimal, applying the letter of the law may do violence to its spirit: saving souls.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JPUSC View Post
Indeed, the matter is settled.

Both statements above are correct and in harmony of course.
This suggests the true answer is not as black and white as protagonists on either side wish for.

It’s an “Excalibur Proposition.”
You can only pull out the truth that is clear and there for all to see if you have a Catholic heart.
pnewton has pulled this sword of truth and replaced it back in the Rock of Peter right before our eyes in his below response.

I think the more vocal here must have been blinking and missed it .

 

[pnewton]

But Cardinal Muller is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and he says that there is no permission granted for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion.

The two statements do not conflict. I think I have pointed this out a dozen times so far. No possibility is not the same as no permission. Think of it this way. Is it possible to have a married, Latin Rite priest? Yes. Do priests have permission to marry? No.

Does this mean we still think of priestly celibacy as the current rule and discipline? Oh course. There have been a handful of converts however that have received a dispensation to switch from other denominations, even though married, and continue as a minister, but with Roman Catholic Holy Orders. It was considered a pastoral provision.

Oops - Sorry. I just noticed there have been others that addressed this.

 

[JimG]

So, it sounds to me as though ambiguity still reigns, and purposely so.

Apparently, priests will in some particular instances be free to advise persons to continue having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse, and also receive the Eucharist.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

So, it sounds to me as though ambiguity still reigns, and purposely so.

Apparently, priests will in some particular instances be free to advise persons to continue having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse, and also receive the Eucharist.

No one is saying that priests are free to advise persons to have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Nowhere has Pope Francis or anyone else even made such a comment.

 

[JimG]

No one is saying that priests are free to advise persons to have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Nowhere has Pope Francis or anyone else even made such a comment.

Some of the possibilities I have read involve those who are civilly divorced and remarried, with no decree of nullity of the prior marriage. But it may be that the only possibility of receiving communion in such cases is for those living as brother and sister. Still, I think even that has been disputed.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Some of the possibilities I have read involve those who are civilly divorced and remarried, with no decree of nullity of the prior marriage. But it may be that the only possibility of receiving communion in such cases is for those living as brother and sister. Still, I think even that has been disputed.

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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

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.

 

[pianistclare]

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.

Bravo to Cardinal Muller.

 

[JimG]

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.

And I assume that those rare cases would not include someone who is continuing to have sexual relations with someone to whom he is not validly married. If that is the case, good. If that is not the case, my original concern remains, as does the ambiguity.

 

[Brendan]

. 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.

Cardinal Muller specifically stated that it does NOT open that possibility

In the interview, Cardinal Müller said that the CDF’s 1994 letter to bishops was still Church teaching, and that Pope Francis’s recent document, Amoris Laetitia, had not altered anything in this regard.

catholicherald.co.uk/news…a-controversy/

Here is*what that Cardinal Muller referred to

1. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”. The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.

1. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching. Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.

So where do you see this ‘possibility’ to which you refer?

 

[Thomas_White]

And I am telling you that Cardinal Schonborn’s statement (understood in light of Chapter 2, Section 8 of Dei Verbum), together with the letter to the Arg. Bishops, requires no further clarification.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Thank God we believe Peter is the rock on which Christ will build his Church and if we are in his boat God will readily forgive whatever errors we confused lay people or theologians may make. And that probably includes Pope Francis as well.

We aren’t saved by theology but loyalty to the Papacy.
I really don’t understand why people need to fly so close to the sun…wings are melting here as we speak .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And I assume that those rare cases would not include someone who is continuing to have sexual relations with someone to whom he is not validly married. If that is the case, good. If that is not the case, my original concern remains, as does the ambiguity.

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)?

 

[Thomas_White]

For convenience, I will take the liberty of quoting my own comment:

The matter is indeed settled: “Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who was tasked by the Pope to present Amoris Laetitia, said it does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine…”

Notice the wording: “it [AL] does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine…”