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

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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

If such is the case, then Jesus himself failed. He has been the most misunderstood figure in all of history.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

We don’t know how many Cardinals have real concerns with Amoris Latetia, whether it’s a minority or not, but even if were, mere numbers do not dictate whether concerns are accurate or not. Your analogy seems to assume that it a minority of Cardinals that have concerns?

What I do know for certain is that Communion for the divorced and remarried was voted on at the Synod and if didn’t get 2/3rds support so it failed.

 

[pnewton]

We don’t know how many Cardinals have real concerns with Amoris Latetia, whether it’s a minority or not, but even if were, mere numbers do not dictate whether concerns are accurate or not. Your analogy seems to assume that it a minority of Cardinals that have concerns?

You are the one assuming. I know that only four out of 200+ cardinals have voiced a concern. Even assuming twice that many, three times that, my analogy of two students in a class is more than generous. Rather, those who rail on about confusion and ambiguity are the ones that are making the assumption that there is a larger contingent that have concerns. This is the assumption without facts.

What I do know for certain is that Communion for the divorced and remarried was voted on at the Synod and if didn’t get 2/3rds support so it failed.

As well it should. And?

 

[Ender]

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.

Perhaps, but one would expect any teacher to answer a direct question such as “Is statement X true or false?” One would never expect that a teacher would simply not respond. This example doesn’t help your position.

I am simply mystified by the idea that confusion doesn’t call for clarification. Burke et al are not alone in their concern. There is ambiguity in the document that is obvious from the different ways different bishops have implemented it. How can this be justified?

Rather, those who rail on about confusion and ambiguity are the ones that are making the assumption that there is a larger contingent that have concerns.

How many students have to be confused before the teacher clarifies the issue? Are we no longer concerned about the one that has gone astray? As regards this topic, the better question is not how many have raised the issue but how valid is the issue they have raised? Are we really going to judge a question not on its merits but solely by how many people ascribe to it?

Ender

 

[philipl]

If such is the case, then Jesus himself failed. He has been the most misunderstood figure in all of history.

I dont think so

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

Here is an excerpt from the Argentine Bishops Draft Guidelines which are said to have been praised by Pope Francis:

"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.” (emphasis added)

While this would not seem to authorize the replacement of a tribunal in making a decision as to the validity of a marriage, it clearly would open the possibility of access to the sacraments in certain cases when, following discernment, it is recognized that “responsibility and culpability” are “limited”. I would think this would mean a discernment, in the inner forum, of the conscience, and, if responsibility and culpability were found limited, it would mean that a person is not in the state of mortal sin. Thus, access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist would then be possible.

I would stress that this is only my opinion in view of 301-307 and footnote 351 of AL and the Arg. bishop’s guidelines. I am not arguing a position. However, if this is correct then a clarification is unnecessary.

 

[JimG]

Here is an excerpt from the Argentine Bishops Draft Guidelines which are said to have been praised by Pope Francis:

"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.” (emphasis added)

While this would not seem to authorize the replacement of a tribunal in making a decision as to the validity of a marriage, it clearly would open the possibility of access to the sacraments in certain cases when, following discernment, it is recognized that “responsibility and culpability” are “limited”. I would think this would mean a discernment, in the inner forum, of the conscience, and, if responsibility and culpability were found limited, it would mean that a person is not in the state of mortal sin. Thus, access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist would then be possible.

I would stress that this is only my opinion in view of 301-307 and footnote 351 of AL and the Arg. bishop’s guidelines. I am not arguing a position. However, if this is correct then a clarification is unnecessary.

What are the couple in the second instance supposed to discern? Are they to discern that the first marriage remains valid but that they are still disposed to receive communion while continuing in a sexual relationship with someone other than their valid spouse?

 

[Thomas_White]

What are the couple in the second instance supposed to discern? Are they to discern that the first marriage remains valid but that they are still disposed to receive communion while continuing in a sexual relationship with someone other than their valid spouse?

I cannot know what the couple is to discern. As I said, I was not providing a position. What I do know is that mortal sin is sin requiring three conditions and “deliberate consent” is one of them.

 

[edwayne]

While this would not seem to authorize the replacement of a tribunal in making a decision as to the validity of a marriage, it clearly would open the possibility of access to the sacraments in certain cases when, following discernment, it is recognized that “responsibility and culpability” are “limited”. I would think this would mean a discernment, in the inner forum, of the conscience, and, if responsibility and culpability were found limited, it would mean that a person is not in the state of mortal sin. Thus, access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist would then be possible.

I would stress that this is only my opinion in view of 301-307 and footnote 351 of AL and the Arg. bishop’s guidelines. I am not arguing a position. However, if this is correct then a clarification is unnecessary.

The only possibility I can see where culpability may mitigate the grave matter of adultery is coercion of one of the spouses. For instance, a woman has been divorced and remarried and has children from the second union. She experiences an awakening of her faith and wants to return to the sacraments. She discovers that she is in an adulterous situation due to her remarriage and knows and accepts that living as ‘brother and sister’ is the morally upright thing to do. However, her husband who is nominal in his faith, or perhaps could care less about the faith, will have none of it and will not comply with her proposal to live as ‘brother and sister’. She could separate from him, but potentially to the detriment of the children’s well-being. She does not will to be intimate in her ‘irregular’ partnership, but complies nonetheless. The grave sin would not be deemed mortal since, although it involves grave matter and she knows it, she does not comply with full consent of the will. So it could be determined through prayer, accompaniment, and discernment that she be allowed to receive Holy Communion. The interesting thing though is that her ‘husband’ of the second union would not be able to receive. Thoughts???

 

[pnewton]

The only possibility I can see where culpability may mitigate the grave matter of adultery is coercion of one of the spouses. … Thoughts???

I found this by Michelle Arnold. It might have some bearing on culpability.

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

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:

If this comes up, it is a subject that should change with spiritual growth, so what might not have been full consent might later be full consent.

 

[Ender]

The only possibility I can see where culpability may mitigate the grave matter of adultery is coercion of one of the spouses. For instance, a woman has been divorced and remarried and has children from the second union. She experiences an awakening of her faith and wants to return to the sacraments. She discovers that she is in an adulterous situation due to her remarriage and knows and accepts that living as ‘brother and sister’ is the morally upright thing to do. However, her husband who is nominal in his faith, or perhaps could care less about the faith, will have none of it and will not comply with her proposal to live as ‘brother and sister’. She could separate from him, but potentially to the detriment of the children’s well-being. She does not will to be intimate in her ‘irregular’ partnership, but complies nonetheless. The grave sin would not be deemed mortal since, although it involves grave matter and she knows it, she does not comply with full consent of the will.

The woman is faced with a seriously difficult choice: sin or suffer, but how can we believe that sin is justifiable?1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Has this teaching been abrogated? You can see where going down this road has led us if we conclude that sin is justifiable when it prevents us from suffering.

So it could be determined through prayer, accompaniment, and discernment that she be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

What this ignores is that the minister of communion also has a duty, and his duty is to withhold communion. The fact she has convinced herself that her sin is excused only compounds her error; it does not require the minister to participate in it.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

The only possibility I can see where culpability may mitigate the grave matter of adultery is coercion of one of the spouses. For instance, a woman has been divorced and remarried and has children from the second union. She experiences an awakening of her faith and wants to return to the sacraments. She discovers that she is in an adulterous situation due to her remarriage and knows and accepts that living as ‘brother and sister’ is the morally upright thing to do. However, her husband who is nominal in his faith, or perhaps could care less about the faith, will have none of it and will not comply with her proposal to live as ‘brother and sister’. She could separate from him, but potentially to the detriment of the children’s well-being. She does not will to be intimate in her ‘irregular’ partnership, but complies nonetheless. The grave sin would not be deemed mortal since, although it involves grave matter and she knows it, she does not comply with full consent of the will. So it could be determined through prayer, accompaniment, and discernment that she be allowed to receive Holy Communion. The interesting thing though is that her ‘husband’ of the second union would not be able to receive. Thoughts???

That would seem a plausible scenario.

I would note, however, that #6 of the Arg. bishops letter states that “if one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability, particularly when a person judges he would fall into certain fault by damaging the children of the new union…”

Emphasis of “particularly” added. This means particular cases are not limited only to those cases where the children of the new union would fall into certain fault. That this means a much wider application does not seem to have gained much attention. Similarly, #5 of the letter could also have very wide application.

Again, I am not advancing a position or argument and am only providing my own understanding (so far) of the meaning of the texts cited.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Verità, (full text here) Cardinal Burke has affirmed there is no disunity among the 4 cardinals who presented the dubia, and that they will request " for a private meeting with the Holy Father to point out to him the unacceptable statements in Amoris laetitia, showing how, in one way or another, they are not adequate to express what the Church has always taught.”

In reality, there is “absolutely no ultimatum,” Cardinal Burke confirmed. “Many media outlets have misunderstood. In that interview in the United States they had asked me what would be the next steps with respect to the dubia presented to the Holy Father, and I simply said that nothing could happen at that moment seeing that we were about to enter into the liturgical season of Christmas and of Epiphany. Only afterwards could one possibly think of how to proceed, but it certainly was not an ultimatum for a confrontation with the Pope.”

“The confusion in the Church over the interpretation of certain passages of Amoris laetitia is evident. That is why I do not see how anyone could be able to say that there is no danger to the faith. Moreover, we have communicated in a very respectful way five dubia to the Pope, and when they were not given a response, we decided, for the good of souls, to make public that there are dubia and that all the faithful are called to pay attention.”

 

[Randolph]

I beg all posters to pause for a moment and reflect on the points and directions of many arguments. I am becoming more convinced that when it comes to wanting to win an argument, theologians are no different than lawyers. In fact, they are even worse in some cases. Big egos have gotten to the points where the zeal and hunger of winning an argument exceeds the eagerness to dialogue and to learn. This applies to me as well–as I plead guilty to that. Let’s discuss and even argue… But the end goal is not winning at any costs, but learning something good and enriching our knowledge of the Catholic faith. We have our own views, and this forum is a great place to express them. Let’s do our best to be civil and respectful to each other in the hope that we all learn something good.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

Look what has come from the Maltese Bishops per this report:

“a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are [sic] at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”.

Catholic Herald then reports:

St John Paul II and Benedict XVI reaffirmed the Church’s perennial teaching that divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive Communion, except possibly when they endeavour to live “as brother and sister”.

However, the Maltese bishops say that avoiding sex with a new partner may be “impossible”.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/maltas-bishops-tell-the-remarried-take-communion-if-you-feel-at-peace-with-god/

How does this reconcile with Church teaching from the two Popes cited above?

 

[Thomas_White]

“Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who was tasked by the pope with presenting Amoris Laetitia, said it does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine, in continuity with previous pope’s and the Church’s Magisterium.” (emphasis added)

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

It is thus fair to say that AL must be understood as a development, advance, fuller understanding or evolution of doctrine. See Chapter 2, 8. of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Specifically, see the last sentence of the second paragraph of Chapter 2, 8.

 

[_Abyssinia]

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Verità, (full text here) Cardinal Burke has affirmed there is no disunity among the 4 cardinals who presented the dubia, and that they will request " for a private meeting with the Holy Father to point out to him the unacceptable statements in Amoris laetitia, showing how, in one way or another, they are not adequate to express what the Church has always taught.”

In reality, there is “absolutely no ultimatum,” Cardinal Burke confirmed. “Many media outlets have misunderstood. In that interview in the United States they had asked me what would be the next steps with respect to the dubia presented to the Holy Father, and I simply said that nothing could happen at that moment seeing that we were about to enter into the liturgical season of Christmas and of Epiphany. Only afterwards could one possibly think of how to proceed, but it certainly was not an ultimatum for a confrontation with the Pope.”

“The confusion in the Church over the interpretation of certain passages of Amoris laetitia is evident. That is why I do not see how anyone could be able to say that there is no danger to the faith. Moreover, we have communicated in a very respectful way five dubia to the Pope, and when they were not given a response, we decided, for the good of souls, to make public that there are dubia and that all the faithful are called to pay attention.”

Was this interview with Cardinal Burke done after the Cardinal Muller interview?

 

[_Abyssinia]

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Verità, (full text here) Cardinal Burke has affirmed there is no disunity among the 4 cardinals who presented the dubia, and that they will request " for a private meeting with the Holy Father to point out to him the unacceptable statements in Amoris laetitia, showing how, in one way or another, they are not adequate to express what the Church has always taught.”

In reality, there is “absolutely no ultimatum,” Cardinal Burke confirmed. “Many media outlets have misunderstood. In that interview in the United States they had asked me what would be the next steps with respect to the dubia presented to the Holy Father, and I simply said that nothing could happen at that moment seeing that we were about to enter into the liturgical season of Christmas and of Epiphany. Only afterwards could one possibly think of how to proceed, but it certainly was not an ultimatum for a confrontation with the Pope.”

“The confusion in the Church over the interpretation of certain passages of Amoris laetitia is evident. That is why I do not see how anyone could be able to say that there is no danger to the faith. Moreover, we have communicated in a very respectful way five dubia to the Pope, and when they were not given a response, we decided, for the good of souls, to make public that there are dubia and that all the faithful are called to pay attention.”

Was this interview with Cardinal Burke done after the Cardinal Muller interview ?

 

[CNA_News]

Valletta, Malta, Jan 13, 2017 / 11:31 am (CNA/EWTN News).- As debate over Amoris laetitia continues to gain steam, the Maltese bishops have come out with a new set of pastoral guidelines allowing divorced-and-remarried persons in certain cases, after “honest discernment”, to receive Communion.

The introduction to the guidelines opens by saying that “like the star which led the Magi toward their encounter with Jesus,” Amoris laetitia also “enlightens our families in their journey toward Jesus as his disciples.”

This message also includes couples and families in “complex situations,” such as those who are separated or divorced and have entered into new unions.

While these people might have “lost their first marriage,” many have not lost hope in Christ, and “earnestly desire to live in harmony with God and the Church, so much so that they are asking us what they can do in order to be able to celebrate the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”

Like the Magi “these persons – at times after a strenuous and difficult journey – are able to meet Christ who offers them a future even when it is impossible for them to follow the same route as before,” the bishops said.

Through a process of “accompaniment and honest discernment,” God is able to open new paths to these people, “even if their previous journey may have been one of darkness, marked with past mistakes or sad experiences of betrayal and abandonment.”

Signed by Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta and Bishop Mario Grech of Gozo, the guidelines were published Jan. 13 and consist of 14 bullet points priests are to use when accompanying couples in irregular situations.

Full article…

 

[Stat_Crux]

This document does not alleviate the confusion.

Per the Maltese document:

9 - Throughout the discernment process, we should also examine the possibility of conjugal continence. Despite the fact that this ideal is not at all easy, there may be couples who, with the help of grace, practice this virtue without putting at risk other aspects of their life together. On the other hand, there are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm.

Compared to the Council of Trent, session VI:

Canon 18. - If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

Again per the Maltese document:

10 - If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).

Again, Council of Trent, session VI:

Canon 9. - If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Why did they not attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions in core Church teachings?