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

[edwayne]

Reading the guidelines provided by the Maltese bishops seem to demonstrate the confusion and ambiguity in Amoris Laetitia making implementation even more difficult. Their guidelines appear to go beyond the exhortation.

 

[pnewton]

Reading the guidelines provided by the Maltese bishops seem to demonstrate the confusion and ambiguity in Amoris Laetitia making implementation even more difficult. Their guidelines appear to go beyond the exhortation.

Quite a bit. Let us see how the Holy See responds.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t think it’s clear the Maltese bishop’s guidelines go beyond those of the Arg. bishops. See the third sentence in 6). (provided in comment #126.)

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think it’s clear the Maltese bishop’s guidelines go beyond those of the Arg. bishops. See the third sentence in 6). (provided in comment #126.)

Perhaps I am wrong about the Maltese statement. There was no direct link to it so the one quote I found excessive lacked context. That was, “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”.

Amoris Laetitia makes this a matter of the internal forum led by the priest. Maybe the full document is clearer.

 

[pnewton]

Come to think of it, leading the article in the Catholic Herald with this line, “Malta’s bishops have said that remarried people should receive Communion if they think they are at peace with God,” was not the fairest way to represent what was going on.

I also found this rather editorially improper.

However, the Maltese bishops say that couples should instead “examine the possibility of conjugal continence”. The bishops refer to “complex situations where the choice of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ becomes humanly impossible”.

then sets in contrast this,

The Council of Trent states that it is always possible to keep the moral law: It teaches: “God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.” It also states: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, are impossible to observe, let him be anathema.”

Yet, even the Trent quote spoke of “want thou canst not”. There is no contradiction of Catholic doctrine to say that it something is humanly impossible. We already know it is humanly impossible to live a sinless life, “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Rather, I would think that which is humanly impossible is why we need to seek the supernatural grace that is available. The question is, how can one grow to such a level of spiritual sanctity where the humanly impossible becomes a joyous cross with the grace of God?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

You would seem to be OK with having an irregular treated as a formal adulterer for their lifetime (when in fact coercive new evidence has come to light which, if available the first time, would well prove their contention that the first marriage was defective from day one) merely because of an arbitrary and strict time limit?

For me adultery is not ultimately an arbitrary human judgement right or wrong, but a sincere quest to discover as best as one reasonably can what the case has always been.

I suggest those who hold to the latter would be appalled at the idea of an arbitrary time limit on such an important finding.

In which case AL is not only a document of mercy but also of justice if Tribunals do work the way you opine. I am not at all convinced Tribunals work in the way you suggest should more robust evidence become available.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JimG View Post
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?

Jim I am surprised by your above diffidence above and you haven’t actually responded …
I have found nothing in AL of ArgDraft that suggests any ambiguity on the matter at all - despite the unfounded fears often expressed on the Net.

Have you discovered anything in AL or the ArgDraft to found your own “perhaps”?

 

[Stat_Crux]

Why then the blanket proscription in these cases against receiving the Eucharist? The answer would seem clear: Since what is subjective is not known by observation, what is objectively observable–i.e., in this instance that a person is in an irregular marriage–can be known and thus can be proscribed so far as receiving the Eucharist is concerned. I would suggest AL advances the understanding of CCC 1650, i.e., of the notion that an irregular marriage, in and of itself, “objectively contravenes God’s law”.

The blanket proscription with regards to marriage and divorce has always been linked to the public nature of the Sacrament of Marriage, and the public scandal from such an explicit rejection of that sacrament in living with another as husband and wife to whom one is not married. I’d recommend the 1994 CDF letter by Cardinal Ratzinger who outlines the reasoning for applying the teaching of Familiaris Consortio. The reasons for the prohibition outlined in FC84 have never been abrogated and no argument has been put forth why those prohibitions are no longer in effect.

When stating “irregular marriage” you must remember that these are two people, at least one of whom is Catholic and already in a valid sacramental marriage to another person. But who instead lives with and engages in sexual activity with another person with whom they are not married. From the perspective of Church teaching “irregular unions” are cases of cohabitation between two persons who are not married as the second union would not have been performed in a Catholic ceremony. We should avoid the term “irregular marriage”, as from a Catholic perspective it would be easy to misconstrue that these people are in some way married.

The argument justifying Communion for the D&R then runs away with itself. There are plenty of unmarried people in relationships who could likewise use the same argument that their ongoing sex outside of marriage does not represent a mortal sin. Polygamists and homosexual unions being the classic examples of how this extrapolation has already started occurring.

The document of the Maltese Bishops already goes beyond Amoris Laetitia’s proposed “very rare exceptional circumstances” to outright saying if one was “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”.

Nobody can control or define an argument built on subjective foundations without somebody else picking it up and running with it further than it was ever intended. Once the connection to a fixed point of reference is lost (tradition, scripture, constant teaching and doctrine) anything could be justified “in the right circumstances”. Canon lawyer Ed Peters has written some insightful pieces on this very point:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/the-maltese-disaster/

 

[Ender]

So how can one have an informed and enlightened conscience, and yet, be at peace with God regarding an adulterous union? This is the problem where extrapolation to other morally grave matters clearly shows the problem with this approach. Can one have an informed and enlightened conscience, and yet, be at peace with God regarding, say, an extra-marital affair? What about being at peace with God in viewing porn? That is, if being at peace with God is the criterion.

This perspective has already been addressed…and rejected.To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment. … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. (JPII, Veritatis Splendor #32)
This is a road we don’t want to go down.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Church has always used the criteria of objective, or assumed objective state, to determine whether one can receive communion. However, I do not agree that it is a doctrinal necessity. Only actual mortal sin kills the spirit, and thus the ability to receive the grace of God.

It is a doctrinal obligation on the minister of communion to refuse communion to those in a public state of objectively grave sin.

Pope Francis spoke of it as an arduous process, and one in which the priest is the guide toward “the formation of a correct judgment.”

How does anyone know what constitutes a “correct judgment” when the criteria for making that judgment are not clear? What about the process makes it arduous? I assume this means the individual is working to get himself to some better place, and that this is hard work, but what makes it hard? Is he supposed to change his behavior? If so, in what way? If change is necessary it would seem to be because his current actions are improper, but if he hasn’t changed and his actions are wrong what is the argument that this should not prevent him from receiving communion?

Ender

 

[Wandile]

There are many heretics in the robes of bishops and cardinals.

It’s as if the Ecumenical Council of Trent was prophetic because it’s infallible canons, under the pin of anathema, spoke of the very things that the heretics and liberals use to allow this sacrilege.

If anybody doubted, now it’s certain that there will be an Ecumenical council in the coming decades to clean up this mess. If not then a very authoritative Papal Bill will be issued by a future pope.

Modernism has been the churches biggest enemy in the past century and is flexing its muscle in this century to the fullest.

Pope Francis has not said anything heretical, he has been very careful about what I chooses to not say. Right now his biggest problem is ambiguity. His seeming aversion to speaking clearly on the meaning of AL is against the duty he has as teacher of the Faith as successor of St Peter. This is the very reason Pope Honorius got condemned, not for heresy, but for negligence as in the monothelite crisis he did not wish to teach but asked both sides to just remain silent.

Pray for the Pope and the orthodox bishops.

 

[Stat_Crux]

This is a road we don’t want to go down.

Too late, some have already run down it at full speed. If we look at the text of the Maltese document outlining their application of Amoris Laetita (with my emphasis):

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).

Some have already started to excuse the shocking wording of this document by stating, and I’m not sure if it’s meant sarcastically, that if someone has an “informed and enlightened conscience” they wouldn’t approach for Communion in the first place.

Equally worrying is, as Canonist Ed Peters points out, that apparently a Priest in Malta “cannot” refuse Communion or absolution in the Sacrament of Confession to anyone “who considers themselves to be at peace with God”. It seems the application of AL has already moved beyond the question of sex outside of marriage onto sin in general.

This is what happens when people abandon objective truth. Nobody can say they weren’t given plenty of warning.

 

[Ender]

When stating “irregular marriage” you must remember that these are two people, at least one of whom is Catholic and already in a valid sacramental marriage to another person. But who instead lives with and engages in sexual activity with another person with whom they are not married. From the perspective of Church teaching “irregular unions” are cases of cohabitation between two persons who are not married as the second union would not have been performed in a Catholic ceremony. We should avoid the term “irregular marriage”, as from a Catholic perspective it would be easy to misconstrue that these people are in some way married.

This brings up another question. So far the question has been about whether those in irregular unions can receive communion, but the issue is deeper than that. Suppose a good Catholic couple find themselves in such a situation where they could not receive a Catholic marriage because one of them was divorced. That partner, going through whatever discernment process is now to be implemented, is cleared to receive communion. Would this couple now not qualify for a Catholic marriage? After all, if they can both receive the sacrament of communion it would seem there is no bar to them receiving the sacrament of marriage. On what grounds could they be denied?

Ender

 

[graciew]

Too late…

This is what happens when people abandon objective truth. Nobody can say they weren’t given plenty of warning.

Well,to tell you the truth,I am starting to believe this is just a question of reading skills here…call me " terrenal",but I acknowledge my mosquito weight category to box against not one but three Cassius Clay at a time…
I prefer other sports. And there is nothing worse than playing tennis against somebody who doesn’t t know how and isists he/she does… We spend the whole alleged game picking up balls. Tedious…
I d rather have a drink and a chat and enjoy it but a game?..no,thank you.And I honestly appreciate persons,honestly,and enjoy friendlies.
But this is me,a mosquito weight… And literally .

 

[Thomas_White]

You would seem to be OK with having an irregular treated as a formal adulterer for their lifetime (when in fact coercive new evidence has come to light which, if available the first time, would well prove their contention that the first marriage was defective from day one) merely because of an arbitrary and strict time limit?

I assure you there are time limits in marriage cases that are before a tribunal. An example could be found in canon 1673.3 of the 1983 code of canon law, which concerns the Competent Forum to hear the marriage case:

"the tribunal of the place in which the respondent has a domicile, provided that both parties live in the territory of the same conference of bishops and the judicial vicar of the domicile of the respondent gives consent after he has heard from the respondent." (emphasis added)

When a petition for Nullity is accepted by a distant diocese, the respondent is typically so informed by certified mail. There is then an arbitrary and strict time limit in which he is to respond to his judicial victor (ten days in a case with which I am familiar). Absent a response, the judicial victor presumes the respondent agrees to having the marriage case heard in the distant diocese. There are time limits throughout the annulment process, and they are imposed to prevent delays.

This has nothing whatever to do with how I might feel an “irregular” should be treated. What I have presented concerning time limits in a marriage case is factual. There is no good reason for me to further argue the point.

 

[Thomas_White]

The blanket proscription with regards to marriage and divorce has always been linked to the public nature of the Sacrament of Marriage, and the public scandal from such an explicit rejection of that sacrament in living with another as husband and wife to whom one is not married. I’d recommend the 1994 CDF letter by Cardinal Ratzinger who outlines the reasoning for applying the teaching of Familiaris Consortio. The reasons for the prohibition outlined in FC84 have never been abrogated and no argument has been put forth why those prohibitions are no longer in effect.

When stating “irregular marriage” you must remember that these are two people, at least one of whom is Catholic and already in a valid sacramental marriage to another person. But who instead lives with and engages in sexual activity with another person with whom they are not married. From the perspective of Church teaching “irregular unions” are cases of cohabitation between two persons who are not married as the second union would not have been performed in a Catholic ceremony. We should avoid the term “irregular marriage”, as from a Catholic perspective it would be easy to misconstrue that these people are in some way married.

They are certainly legally married under civil law, and that they are is recognized by the Church–thus the presumption of “manifest grave sin” and the prohibition against receiving Holy Communion. That a party of the irregular marriage "engages in sexual activity with another person with whom they are not married is a presumption. And so is the question of scandal.

During the synod, this issue was throughly discussed in a thread of considerable length:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=972748&page=28

 

[graciew]

[/INDENT]This is a road we don’t want to go down.

Ender

We do not go pitching Popes against each other.What is that?
This is ridiculous…
Can t you see they were each obedient and respectful and learnt from each other when they were subject to them in turn?
Do you realize that we learnt to love and respect each of them from the hands of the other in turn.?
Do you really believe you can use them as pawns?
Better not. This would be really getting very lost.
They aren t and have never been copycuts,or cookie cuts,but obedient,experienced and knowledgeable…please,give us a break…Do not mess things up with our Popes.
And more thing,and I know this is just a detail: Benedict and Francis had the grace to live even physically with John Paul and Benedict respectively alive. As a loving grandchild with a grandfather…

 

[Ender]

We do not go pitching Popes against each other. What is that?

This is not the question, it is simply a way of presenting the issue so as not to have to address the questions being raised.

Ender

 

[JimG]

The Maltese Disaster

 

[JPUSC]

The matter is settled. Communion for the divorced and remarried can be determined by the Bishops of that region. Just accept it.

Amoris Laetitia:

Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied" (AL, No. 3).

If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop (AL, 300).

For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would be- speak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions.” Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. 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, 305).

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf