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

[Justin_Swanton]

Agree.

ditto

 

[Thomas_White]

If your understanding is accurate then the issue is much broader, and would seem to include all sins, not merely sex outside of marriage.

The bar against receiving communion (before AL) was that sexual relations outside of a valid marriage were not simply sins, but sins that could not be forgiven because there was no intent to stop. Without contrition there can be no absolution - a condition that has not changed.

What, then, allows communion now? The couple no longer needs to have their “sins” forgiven because they have determined that they are not sins in the first place. The determination of what is or is not a sin is theirs to make, and if such a solution is valid in this particular case why should it not be valid generally for all sins? What is the argument that if a person may determine what is or is not a sin in one instance he is not equally free to make such a determination in other cases? [emphasis added]

Ender

Why suppose this has changed? Is not the determination of what is or is not a sin always been for a person to make before they confess? At least since Aquinas, the first condition of a valid confession has been an examination of conscience.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Well spotted, the phrase “objective moral evil” is indeed use there.
However it is not present in 81.

If we look at the sentence we have:
In [the teleological] view, deliberate consent to certain kinds of behaviour declared illicit by traditional moral theology would not imply an objective moral evil.

The context here is that Pope JPII is critiquing a mistaken view of Teleologist Catholic theologians.

Therefore it is not at all clear to me here that JPII is endorsing this phrase or simply countering the teleological view by borrowing expressions they use and throwing them back at them.

Are you aware of any other Magisterial usages of this phrase?
This does seem to be a bit of a cobbled together “one off” usage.

On the contrary, the “objective moral evil” of adultery is entirely consistent with the teaching of Veritatis Splendor. VS teaches that there are objectively evil actions, of which paragraph 81 provides examples including adultery.

The sentence you quote from VS is appropriate to our discussion. Pope St JPII is indeed stating that to adopt the “proportionalist” or “consequentialist” approaches to morality, one can never define something as an objective moral evil. That is, exclusively and only ever, an evil action, regardless of intention or context. Your postings suggest you do not define sex outside of an existing valid marriage (or “adultery” in the correct technical sense of the word) as being an objective moral evil. Therefore, regardless of what technical name chosen to describe this philosophy, it does not appear to be in accord with what JPII was trying to teach in VS.

Do you believe that we need each and every magisterial document to use, and only use, an explicit literal wording in order to interpret its meaning, and that it must explicitly outline each and every circumstance for its application? In which case, we have no disagreement on Amoris Laetitia, as nowhere does it literally state that unrepentant sexually active divorcees are able to receive Communion.

I’m not certain your use of “cobbled together” is an appropriate way to describe Veritatis Splendor. “Clear and unambiguous teaching” would be more correct.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Perhaps because current Tribunal rules require a stronger level of objective evidence for discovery against the first marriage than do PPs re discovery of grave sin against Communion.

Indeed they do require different levels of assurance. The judicial process for a trial against a charge of murder requires a stronger level of objective evidence for discovery of the truth of the charges than does the judicial process in appealing a parking fine.

Marriage is a public, lifelong sacrament. The consequences of an erroneous judgement on behalf of the relevant authority would have far wider implications (for the new couple, the former spouse, their families, friends, children) than the private sins of an individual Catholic in the confessional.

 

[_Abyssinia]

An excerpt from an interesting post from Fr Dwight Longnecker:

As an ordinary parish priest it falls to me to actually deal with the cases of divorced and re-married people.
I’m the person on the front line, and am therefore the one who has to deal with their questions and help them in their chosen situation.
Therefore I am grateful for any guidance from above, and any bishop who offers advice on the way forward is trying to help me do my job.

I have read with interest the letter from from Archbishop of Malta giving advice on how to administer the eighth chapter of the Holy Father’s Amoris Laetitia.
Archbishop Scicluna’s words are kindly and pastoral and, no doubt he intends to be a good pastor to his people. Unfortunately, his letter raises in my mind another question.
This is the controversial paragraph:

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).

I am certainly all for helping the divorced and civilly re-married find their way back into communion with the church. I realize from first hand experience how complicated these situations can be and I am especially concerned for the victims of a terrible marriage–the spouse and children who are abandoned and abused. I don’t want to be “rigid” and I certainly don’t want to kick anybody out of the church because of their irregular marriage.
What troubles me in the Maltese bishops’ document is that it opens the door to complete subjectivity. Rather than saying to a divorced and re-married person, “I’m afraid you are objectively outside full communion with the Catholic Church. Now what can we do about that?” It allows for an individual decision by a parish priest based on “a 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.”
Yes, but in practical terms what does this mean? Father Lax takes this to mean “If you think your situation is okay with God you go ahead and receive communion.” Meanwhile Father Rigid takes it to mean, “After a long period of penance, prayer and self denial you should come to the conclusion that I have already come to, that you should come to the Eucharist, but you should not receive communion.”
The more disturbing phrase is that if the person believes “that he or she are at peace with God” they cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist. Again, what is most concerning is the continued ambiguity. Notice that the bishop doesn’t actually say, “They may receive the Body and Blood of Christ.” He says they may “participate in the Sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation.”
But they are already welcome to participate in these sacraments. If they are divorced and remarried they can go to confession and confess that they are in an irregular relationship and receive absolution. Then they may seek a decree of nullity and attempt to live as brother and sister until such time that their relationship can be regularized. In that sense they have always been able to go to confession. Nothing has changed.
They also have always been able to participate in the Eucharist. Indeed, they are encouraged to do so. What they are not encouraged to do is to receive communion. The Bishops of Malta, in remaining ambiguous on this point, are being either naive or disingenuous. Do they mean that the divorced and re-married may receive communion or not? They may certainly participate in the Eucharist. In this sense nothing is new, but by “participate in the Eucharist” the lax will conclude that this means to receive communion whereas the rigid will conclude that it means they should come to Mass, but NOT receive communion.
Consequently, the bishops of Malta, in their well meaning attempt to clarify the issue have only continued the relativistic ambiguity. Rather than clearing the waters they have only muddied it further.
I don’t believe I am being particularly harsh or rigid, but simply seeking the way forward with compassion for those Catholics who are outside full communion because of this issue, to assist them and accompany them to live and walk within the teachings of the church.

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/01/questions-archbishop-malta.html

(Bold text my emphases)

 

[_Abyssinia]

Continuation of except:

quote]Names and details have been changed to keep the individual anonymous.
John and Susan join our parish. In my meeting with them as new parishioners it emerges that both have been in other, youthful and disastrous marriages. The marriages were short and ended badly. Later in life John and Susan individually returned to their Catholic faith, met one another and have a strong, mature marriage. They have four teenaged sons. They felt they should come to receive communion.
I explained that they should definitely come to Mass and be part of our parish, but they should come to receive a blessing until such time as we could help them receive a decree of nullity for their first marriages. They asked why.

I said “Because your teenaged sons are watching. They thought again and I explained. “You see, your kids know about your previous marriages right?” They nodded.
“Well, eventually they will learn about the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding marriage and they will wonder why you openly disobey the church’s teaching. However, if you refrain from receiving communion you will be teaching them that you believe the church’s teaching is important. If you do otherwise they will see you being public hypocrites, disrespect you and care nothing for their faith. On the other hand, if you explain why you are not receiving communion their respect for you and for the faith will be strong because they will see that you have made a sacrifice in your own life because you believe and try to adhere to the church’s teaching. Teenagers especially are idealistic. They want to believe and want to see the adults in their life making every effort to live out the gospel.”
John and Susan come to Mass every week with their sons. They come to receive a blessing and are working with us to receive a nullity decree for their first marriages. Rather than feel excluded, they have thanked me for taking their situation seriously and helping them find a way to belong to the church and move forward.
I can’t help feeling that the Bishops of Malta, on the other hand, are encouraging their priests to teach their people–and especially the young–that you can do whatever you wish as long as you feel in your heart that you are “at peace with God.”

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/questions-archbishop-malta

(Bold text my emphases)

 

[Thomas_White]

Magisterial?

Veritatis Splendor by Pope St John Paul II, paragraph 75:

And paragraph 81 of the same:

With respect to the concept of intrinsic evil, there is this to consider:

“God looked at everything he had made and found it very good” (Genesis, 1:31).

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature of a thing

Augustine thus maintained that evil resulted from the misuse of what is good.

 

[commenter]

Our Lady told us (I think, please correct me) the final battle will be over the family.

Contraception, abortion, same-sex faux-marriage, transgender “rights”, etc.

Is this part of that? Possibly allowing adultery and further sacrilege through partaking in Communion?

Of course, the popes have emphasized the need to defend the family for the past century, including our current pope. The best interpreter of private revelation in our time is always our current pope and bishop.

We can’t evaluate and apply the Magisterium in the light of private revelation; we evaluate and apply (if appropriate) private revelation in the light of the Magisterium.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Why suppose this has changed? Is not the determination of what is or is not a sin always been for a person to make before they confess? At least since Aquinas, the first condition of a valid confession has been an examination of conscience.

Indeed, an examination of conscience is a critical part of the Sacrament of Confession. One of the classical examinations of conscience is to go through the ten commandments. In this particular case, the penitent may encounter problems at numbers 6 “You shall not commit adultery” and 9 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”

Any Catholic, having been catechised in the faith before their first (still existing) sacramental union would not be able to say that they are ignorant of the Church’s moral teachings on sex outside of marriage and the indissolubility of a valid sacramental union. Furthermore, as the Cathechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the judgements of a human conscience as to the moral good or evil of an action are not infallible, and that we also have a duty to ensure that our conscience is correctly formed.

 

[Stat_Crux]

With respect to the concept of intrinsic evil, there is this to consider:

“God looked at everything he had made and found it very good” (Genesis, 1:31).

intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature of a thing

Augustine thus maintained that evil resulted from the misuse of what is good.

Agreed. Misuse, as explained in the marriage catechism course I went through, is the reason why sex outside of marriage is an intrinsically evil action as “sex is a gift from God, reserved for one man and one woman joined together in the Sacrament of Marriage”.

Veritatis Splendor is a beautiful encyclical, albeit heavy in technical language. It goes into some length about the nature of actions, and was written against several different forms of moral relativism which had appeared in contemporary moral theology in the latter half of the 20th century. I’d really recommend taking the time to read it if you haven’t had the opportunity already.

Also, just on the subject of Augustine and divorce;

Even setting aside any mystical interpretation, the fact that the Lord was pleased to be asked, and to go to a marriage, showeth plainly enough that He is the Author and Blesser of marriage. There were yet to be those of whom the Apostle hath warned us as forbidding to marry; who say that marriage is a bad thing in itself, and a work of the devil. Yet we read in the Gospel that when the Lord was asked, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? He answered that it was not lawful, except it were for fornication. In which answer ye will remember that He used these words: What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They who are well instructed in the Catholic religion know that God is the Author and Blesser of marriage; and that, whereas joining together in marriage is of God, divorce is of the devil.

Saint Augustine in “Evangelium Ioannis, tract. IX”

 

[TMC]

The open calls for schism in this thread are… interesting. I am aware that there is always a small minority that are willing to attack the Church from a “more Catholic than the Pope” stance, but those kinds of things are not usually tolerated here.

 

[Stat_Crux]

The open calls for schism in this thread are… interesting. I am aware that there is always a small minority that are willing to attack the Church from a “more Catholic than the Pope” stance, but those kinds of things are not usually tolerated here.

I’m not sure anyone is “calling for a schism”. The word “catholic” comes from a Greek word meaning “universal”, so to promote creating a schism would be anything but Catholic.

 

[JimG]

The comments from Fr. Dwight Longenecker in Posts #71 and 72 of this thread are enlightening of the way such matters ought to be handled. I would highlight just one sentence of his commentary: “What troubles me in the Maltese bishops’ document is that it opens the door to complete subjectivity.”

The secular culture has already soaked us in subjectivity. For the Church to advocate subjectivity only adds fuel to the fire, and helps no one.

Fr. L.'s complete commentary can be found here:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/01/questions-archbishop-malta.html

 

[Ender]

Why suppose this has changed? Is not the determination of what is or is not a sin always been for a person to make before they confess? At least since Aquinas, the first condition of a valid confession has been an examination of conscience.

It is for the individual to determine whether his actions do or do not conform to the standards set by the church, but it is not for him to determine whether or not the standards may be waived as he chooses.A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of a precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, (JPII, Veritatis Splendor #56)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Do you believe that we need each and every magisterial document to use, and only use, an explicit literal wording in order to interpret its meaning, and that it must explicitly outline each and every circumstance for its application?

The reference to objective evil in church documents is common. That it refers to moral evil is understood.*The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability. *(Francis, Evangelii Gaudium)
375. What norms must conscience always follow?
1789
*There are three general norms: … 3) charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience, even though this does not mean accepting as good something that is objectively evil. *(Compendium of the Catechism)

*An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. *(CDF, Note on the banalization of sexuality…)
*5. The confessor is bound to admonish penitents regarding objectively grave transgressions of God’s law… (Vademecum for Confessors)
One wonders whether this last directive will have to be revised in light of the interpretation drawn from AL. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. *(CCC 1650)
It isn’t clear how a confessor can admonish someone for objectively transgressing against God’s law on the one hand and be expected to ignore it on the other.

Ender

 

[Stat_Crux]

The comments from Fr. Dwight Longenecker in Posts #71 and 72 of this thread are enlightening of the way such matters ought to be handled. I would highlight just one sentence of his commentary: “What troubles me in the Maltese bishops’ document is that it opens the door to complete subjectivity.”

The secular culture has already soaked us in subjectivity. For the Church to advocate subjectivity only adds fuel to the fire, and helps no one.

Fr. L.'s complete commentary can be found here:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/01/questions-archbishop-malta.html

Thanks for the link to his article.

Another comment I read on a different website raised a different question of “what happens to the individual parish Priests in Malta who continues to apply the traditional teaching with regards to the Eucharist and Confession, both for those civilly divorced and remarried and for mortal sins in general?” Just think of it, those men who have sacrificed their entire lives for God and his Church to serve the Christian faithful, having given up on the possibility of wealth, worldly prestige, family, security. Having gone through six or seven years of seminary, learning the examples of the saints and then moving into their own ministry. Then watching the impact of the encroaching atheistic secular society in their parishes, steeling themselves for the fight ahead and trying to keep the flame of Christianity burning in the western world. Now… this. Is it any wonder there’s a problem with vocations if the confusion of interpreting AL suggests, rightly or wrongly, that goalposts could move in the future?

It’s all fine and well for us to have a discussion as laymen and women on this forum. Whether we come to some sort of a resolution or not, it’s just an internet forum. The worrying impact of the confusion is how the same debate plays out in the real world in parishes, in the selection of Bishops and Cardinals or the election of the next Pope. I hope and pray that we all (on both sides of this debate) come out of this present confusion with a greater understanding of Christ’s teachings, and that his Church is built up and not knocked down.

 

[TCEL]

Of course, the popes have emphasized the need to defend the family for the past century, including our current pope. The best interpreter of private revelation in our time is always our current pope and bishop.

We can’t evaluate and apply the Magisterium in the light of private revelation; we evaluate and apply (if appropriate) private revelation in the light of the Magisterium.

Private revelation is private. We aren’t bound to believe it. Is it safe for me to assent it’s the final battle? I don’t think so, but I certainly can’t ignore my senses and say we aren’t facing a struggle over the family. There’s nothing prophetic in admitting that much. Anyway, I’m wondering if this thread will get pulled.

 

[Stat_Crux]

The reference to objective evil in church documents is common. That it refers to moral evil is understood.The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability. (Francis, Evangelii Gaudium)
375. What norms must conscience always follow?
1789
There are three general norms: … 3) charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience, even though this does not mean accepting as good something that is objectively evil. (Compendium of the Catechism)

An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. (CDF, Note on the banalization of sexuality…)
5. The confessor is bound to admonish penitents regarding objectively grave transgressions of God’s law… (Vademecum for Confessors)
One wonders whether this last directive will have to be revised in light of the interpretation drawn from AL.* If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law*. (CCC 1650)
It isn’t clear how a confessor can admonish someone for objectively transgressing against God’s law on the one hand and be expected to ignore it on the other.

Ender

Some interpretations of AL seem to posit that sex outside of marriage remains “mortally sinful”, but that there are circumstances under which one can continue to repeatedly and deliberately carry on regardless. In the same way, the “liberal” interpretation of AL does not propose that the first valid marriage can be dissolved, but that one could in good conscience ignore that fact and carry on regardless as though the present civil marriage, in effect, “overrides” the valid sacramental marriage. They never come out and say they, but that seems to be the essential substance of what’s being proposed.

I know those who support the traditional interpretation of the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage are often accused of being “legalistic”. But from my perspective, saying that something hasn’t changed, but then coming up with a justification for changing and ignoring the actual objective situation sounds more like a lawyer’s way of arguing than anything the traditional teaching would put forward.

If we need a theology degree to understand what God is apparently asking us to do, and understand why it doesn’t contradict the past teaching of the Church, then one might well ask why Christ thought it best to start sharing His word by walking around the Holy Land sharing such an esoteric, complicated philosophy with illiterate Judean peasants

 

[JimG]

Thanks for the link to his article.

Another comment I read on a different website raised a different question of “what happens to the individual parish Priests in Malta who continues to apply the traditional teaching with regards to the Eucharist and Confession, both for those civilly divorced and remarried and for mortal sins in general?” Just think of it, those men who have sacrificed their entire lives for God and his Church to serve the Christian faithful, having given up on the possibility of wealth, worldly prestige, family, security. Having gone through six or seven years of seminary, learning the examples of the saints and then moving into their own ministry. Then watching the impact of the encroaching atheistic secular society in their parishes, steeling themselves for the fight ahead and trying to keep the flame of Christianity burning in the western world. Now… this. Is it any wonder there’s a problem with vocations if the confusion of interpreting AL suggests, rightly or wrongly, that goalposts could move in the future?

It’s all fine and well for us to have a discussion as laymen and women on this forum. Whether we come to some sort of a resolution or not, it’s just an internet forum. The worrying impact of the confusion is how the same debate plays out in the real world in parishes, in the selection of Bishops and Cardinals or the election of the next Pope. I hope and pray that we all (on both sides of this debate) come out of this present confusion with a greater understanding of Christ’s teachings, and that his Church is built up and not knocked down.

Indeed, a parish priest might find that following his bishop’s interpretation of A.L would force him to act against his own conscience and against what he has learned in seminary. Not a good position to be in.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”

• Bishop Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent

Well if this was stated by a Pope, or even two, your argument from authority would be well made. Without that it seems little more than circular.