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

[Blue_Horizon]

They are not the same thing…

Where did I say “2nd civil marriage and/or Cohabitation” is the same as sexual activity?
Do you believe that if two things have one effect in common they are the same thing?

I simply noted both bann public Communion, though there is a difference in gravity.
Hence neither may be absolutely grave physical evils and exceptions are therefore possible.

Clearly Pope Francis already believes so.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.”

Do you think a Marine or one involved in lethal self defence would have similar problems with the 5th?
Likewise there may be irregulars who are exceptions to the 6th.
There certainly were in the time of both Moses and Jesus.

So then the real issue is not about Canon 916 (which is what backs up the above) but Canon 915 - the responsibilities of the Minister.

You will find an examination of conscience is not the issue but an examination of behaviour (manifest offences of grave matter) and disposition.

A different issue.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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…;

You mean sex outside of marriage, if freely chosen and understood to be bad, is always and everywhere a morally evil act?

Or did you mean something else?

 

[edwayne]

If you are referring to my contribution you may have misunderstood.
I was lamenting that the US Bishops Conference did not come out with unified Guidelines for the USA as a whole.

Many contributors find it difficult that couples can be treated one way in this town and completely different in the next.

How is that any different with the difficulty that couples can be treated one way in this region or bordering country and completely different in the next?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The reference to objective evil in church documents is common. That it refers to moral evil is understood.

I don’t think so.
It is usually the reverse.

Hence we colloquially say the Commandments list “mortal sins”.
What is really meant is that the Commandments specify “grave matter” (objective evil).

We cannot usually presume that any reference to “grave matter” (objective evil) alone necessarily implies imputation of "moral evil (ie the presence of full understanding/consent).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… the calls by some to recognise the “supremacy” of an individual conscience over an objective truth is not to be unexpected.

It is called “primacy” of conscience I believe…and the teaching still stands.
That does not mean it changes “objective truth” … grave matter remains grave matter.
But if an individual who has made sincere effort to inform his conscience still erroneously holds there is no grave matter involved in his concrete deed then he is without culpability even though he engaged in grave wrong.

It is still objectively a grave wrong, he is mistaken.

 

[billy15]

Quite a few unproven assumptions here:
(a)…

I do too. If one is being coerced to do something and can’t change the behavior immediately, their culpability may be reduced or even completely mitigated.

(b)

Are you implying one can go to the Sacrament of Confession without having a firm purpose of amendment, and expect absolution? Our Lord told the woman “…go, and do not sin again.” (Jn. 8: 11) I’ve seen you quote from the Baltimore Catechism on a few occasions. Allow me to quote from Baltimore Catechism No. 2 as well:

410. How do these words of Christ (Jn. 20: 21-23) oblige us to confess our sins?

These words of Christ oblige us to confess our sins because the priest cannot know whether he should forgive or retain our sins unless we tell them to him.

Christ never asked men to confess their sins to Him as He could read their hearts. He could see both their sins and their sorrow. However, He rarely gives the power of reading hearts to priests.

384. What must we do to receive the sacrament of Penance worthily?
To receive the sacrament of Penance worthily, we must:

1. examine our conscience;
2. be sorry for our sins;
   3. have the firm purpose of not sinning again;
3. confess our sins to the priest;
4. be willing to perform the penance the priest gives us.

388. What is contrition?
Contrition is sincere sorrow for having offended God, and hatred for the sins we have committed, with a firm purpose of sinning no more.

406. What is the firm purpose of sinning no more?
The firm purpose of sinning no more is the sincere resolve not only to avoid sin but to avoid as far as possible the near occasions of sin.

Suppose someone says, “God, I am sorry I have offended You, but I intend to do it again.” Is he really sorry? Of course not. Suppose someone says, “I promise not to steal again, but I will not stay away from my companions who steal.” Is he really sorry? Of course not. He is fooling himself if he thinks he can keep out of sin without giving up the occasions of sin."

From the Council of Trent Session 14, Chapter 4:

Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. Wherefore the holy Synod declares, that this contrition contains not only a cessation from sin, and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old…

In your (b), you seem to be pitting the actions of Christ against the commands and doctrine of the Church. It’s as if you’re saying “Jesus didn’t ask for a firm purpose of amendment; the Church today does.” But there’s no way one could pit the words of Christ against the Church, and that’s because Jesus IS the Church; He is the Head of the Church. Anything the Church commands or teaches through the authentic magisterium comes directly from Christ our God. "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. …the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (Jn. 14: 18, 25).

(c)…

As I and others on this forum have mentioned, I believe you are wrong. Any sexual activity outside the marital embrace is fornication. Any sexual activity with someone who is not one’s spouse is a form of fornication known as adultery. The divine command reads “You shall not commit adultery”. Negative commandments admit of no exceptions. Therefore, there is no such thing as “permissible” adultery. "The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. …[Man]can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil. …Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: ‘If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery…’ (, 52Veritatis Splendor.)

(d)…

You are still making a false equivalence between adultery and the killing that happens during combat. So you admit the activities of these irregulars are evil? CCC 1756 says the following about evil activities: “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

(e)…

Perhaps. Only God knows who is in a state of grace. That doesn’t invalidate the teaching of the Church that, in the words of St. John Paul, “one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments”.

(f)…

Because there is little scandal does not mean there is no scandal. Besides, this isn’t especially pertinent to the point I was trying to make in the previous post.

 

[gilliam]

Cardinal Napier ‏@CardinalNapier
1/2 @adamfish Perhaps you are too young to remember Humanae Vitae & its effect on the Church of the 1960’s. I wonder how many calling today

Cardinal Napier ‏@CardinalNapier
2/2 for strictest application of Church’s teaching are living the basic demand of Humanae Vitae: “Every marital act must be open to life”?

Cardinal Napier ‏@CardinalNapier
So, instead of screaming & shouting about what Bishops & Priests should do, everyone must simply get down to practising it day in & day out!

 

[Ender]

You mean sex outside of marriage, if freely chosen and understood to be bad, is always and everywhere a morally evil act?

Sex outside of marriage is always and everywhere a morally evil act - that is, a sin - regardless of whether it is specifically chosen or understood to be bad. As I said on another thread, the intent is irrelevant (for all acts involving intrinsic evils).

You stated I was “flat out mistaken” and should go to an encyclopedia to inform myself as to the truth of the matter. The following citations are from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the meaning of sin.- Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act…
- From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that it is voluntary, its imputability.
- An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin.
- Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin.
Either the first or second statement should suffice, but the statement that “invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin” makes no sense unless we admit first that a sin has been committed, but since a sin is “nothing else than a morally bad act” how is it an error to say that “Sin is a moral evil irrespective of culpability”? How can invincible ignorance excuse us from a sin if our ignorance meant there was no sin committed in the first place?

If that is not convincing there is this from the Vademecum for ConfessorsIn general, it is not necessary for the confessor to investigate concerning sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, however, to be an evil and a disorder.
According to you there cannot be such a thing as a sin committed in invincible ignorance. According to the vademecum the act is very much a sin even though it is not imputable.

Ender

 

[billy15]

Absolutely, I do not see how anyone can read AL now in the light of the endorsed ArgDraft and objectively see anything otherwise.

Your abbreviation of “ArgDraft” is kind of confusing. I think I know what you’re talking about, but before I take a guess, what are you referring to?

Anyways, that’s unfortunate that you don’t see how someone can read AL in a light that says nothing has changed. Several bishops say doctrine and the practice of the Church has not changed. Archbishops Chaput and Sample are among them. In fact, you may or may not have forgotten that the head of the CDF himself, said the same thing. In a couple interviews back in May, Cardinal Müller affirmed
that the Magisterium on remarried divorcees was unchanged by AL. Some translations from the German:

Tagespost: There have been different claims that Amoris Laetitia has rescinded this (prior) discipline [FC 84, *Sacramentum Caritatis

29], because it allows, at least in certain cases, the reception of the Eucharist by remarried divorcees without requiring that they change their way of life in accord with Familiaris Consortio 84 – namely, by giving up their new bond or by living as brothers and sisters.

Müller: If Amoris Laetitia intended to rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline, it would have expressed itself in a clear manner and it would have given the reasons for it. However, such a statement with such a meaning is not to be found in it [Amoris Laetitia]. Nowhere does the pope put into question the arguments of his predecessors. They [the arguments] are not based upon the subjective guilt of these our brothers and sisters, but, rather, upon the visible, objective way of life which is in opposition to the words of Christ.

---

The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament – the Eucharist – without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”

---

…where Amoris Laetitia speaks in general about situations, without concentrating on the very concrete circumstances – for example, in the cases of a civil remarriage after a first sacramental marriage – the previous statements of the Church’s Magisterium are still valid with regard to these concrete cases

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I am going to call garbage on that. ** I **am one that agrees with what the Pope supported, and you add all that other insulting and unorthodox beliefs on me? That is incredibly illogical.

The Pope takes the Magisterium very serious and he is intelligent enough not to be so narrow-minded as to disregard others who disagree. One who is believes all these interpretations are wrong are not more Catholic than the Pope just because they are more rigid. If anything they run the danger of the Pharisees who put their own understanding of the Law about that of God who also understood that mercy is part of the law.

It is neither garbage, nor insulting, nor illogical. It’s just fact. Whatever everyone else may think of AL, the Pope has made his ***own ***view of Chapter 8 quite clear in his letter to the Argentinian bishops, endorsing their interpretation which equally clearly allows Communion for remarried divorcees who continue to live in a sexually active cohabitation.

The root problem with AL is that it lays down (or at least is perceived to lay down) principles that can be applied to ***any ***morally compromised situation. So assisted suicides become subjects of ‘accompaniment’ - hello Canada - and, as sure as God made little apples, homosexual and lesbian couples are next.

There is nothing pharisaical or rigid about upholding moral commandments that permit no exception. If you live in an adulterous union you are in grave sin and you cannot receive sacraments that require a state of grace. The Scriptures say it. St John Paul II said it. All the Magisterium in between says it.

An sure it can be done. What you mean is you can’t wrap your head around it because you think the law of non-contradiction applies. A Catholic should never elevate their own opinion so high as to think it excludes the Holy Father, much less his fellow Catholics.

The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of Christ. He is not Christ. He cannot overturn or cast doubt on the perennial teaching of the Church. And yes, the principle of non-contradiction does apply here. The perennial teaching of the Church says you cannot give Communion to those living in a sexually active and irregular union. There is simply no way of squaring that with giving Communion to those living in a sexually active and irregular union. I don’t know how to say it any plainer.

 

[Ender]

It is called “primacy” of conscience I believe…and the teaching still stands.

There is no primacy of conscience in the sense you use the term; the teaching is misunderstood.

But if an individual who has made sincere effort to inform his conscience still erroneously holds there is no grave matter involved in his concrete deed then he is without culpability even though he engaged in grave wrong.

It is true that in some cases he may be without culpability, but the mere fact that he follows the dictates of his conscience does not mean he will not be held accountable for his act. It is incorrect to say he is “without culpability.” He may not be held accountable…but he very well may be.*CCC 1790…Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. *
*CCC 1791 This **ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
***A clear conscience is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Ender

 

[Wandile]

Surely it is lip service to AL if the Philly Guidelines do not allow any possibility of access to the sacraments for some active irregulars as AL and the Arg Draft allow?

It really isn’t because the document itself does not ever say they can receive holy communion . Only that they can be assited by the sacraments. Something that has always been part of the traditional teaching :

Teach the couple about the error of their situation and how it contradicts scripture. Then once they know this, they must amend their lives to live as brother and sister. Then they receive the sacrament of reconciliation. Finally they can receive communion.

Any other pastoral solution that does not involve living as brother and sister of a split up of the the couple goes against catholic teaching which is inspired by scripture :

Matthew 5:31-32

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

The priests job is to bring someone closer to Christ and not help someone commit the sin of sacrilege by allowing them to receive the body and blood of Christ when they are in a state of adultery and thus mortal sin (at least objectively) :

“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 11:27

Amoris Laetitia does teach in the the conscience as a determining factor of such state of sin. However if it is noticed by the priest that someone does not know church teaching on this matter; he can’t just let the couple continue obliviously and receive communion. That would be him failing at his apostolic duty to teach the faith as Christ did. His job would be to let them know what the church teaches, then now that they know, help them to amend their lives to the teaching of the church and thus refrain until they live as brother and sister. Then they can receive communion after going to confession.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It really isn’t because the document itself does not ever say they can receive holy communion . Only that they can be assited by the sacraments.

When your literary skills are a little more robust perhaps we can take this one further.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How is that any different with the difficulty that couples can be treated one way in this region or bordering country and completely different in the next?

Yes, I agree.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you implying one can go to the Sacrament of Confession without having a firm purpose of amendment, and expect absolution?

I observe Jesus forgave people without Jesus asking or them expressing any firm purpose.

As I and others on this forum have mentioned, I believe you are wrong.

You do not believe in passive adultery versus active adultery?
Jesus did.

The divine command reads “You shall not commit adultery”. Negative commandments admit of no exceptions.

And yet exceptions existed for 100s of years up until the time of Jesus.
It doesn’t say “thou shall not also Communicate”
Exceptions obviously seem to exist to “You shall not kill.”

Therefore, there is no such thing as “permissible” adultery.

Correct, but there may be tolerable technical adultery when it comes to Communion

So you admit the activities of these irregulars are evil?

Of course. Just like killing, taking the property of another, being intoxicated etc etc.

CCC 1756 says the following about evil activities: "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts …

Are all evil behaviours also “human acts”?

“one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments”.

It depends if the “choosing” is direct or indirect.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is nothing pharisaical or rigid about upholding moral commandments that permit no exception.

You mean Commandments that specify only “grave matter” don’t you?

The presence of grave matter of itself has never prohibited a sinner from approaching Jesus in Communion.

 

[Wandile]

When your literary skills are a little more robust perhaps we can take this one further.

Ad hominem

Attack the content of my words not the my person. You know nothing about me or my literary skills so please refrain from your sorry excuse for clairvoyance.

What I said I through church teaching. Plain and simple. Event eh head of the congregation for the doctrine of faith (Cardinal Müller) affirmed this.

 

[Wandile]

I observe Jesus forgave people without Jesus asking or them expressing any firm purpose.

Never. He always says “go and sin no more”. That is a recognition of their sinful state and asking for a purpose of firm ammendement to their lives.

You do not believe in passive adultery versus active adultery?
Jesus did.

You’re creating categories that don’t exist. Their is only objective sin versus subjective sin. Because a priest cannot know a person conscience, to avoid any potential profination of the sacraments, it’s is only correct that the priest tells them to refrain from communion for the good of their souls.

And yet exceptions existed for 100s of years up until the time of Jesus.
It doesn’t say “thou shall not also Communicate”

No exception existed. Jesus came to correct that incorrect teaching of Moses hence he said “you heard Moses said… this has never been allowed from the beginning”

Exceptions obviously seem to exist to “You shall not kill.”

Actually no exceptions exist because the commandment is “Thou shall not murder” and not “Thou shall not kill”.

 

[graciew]

Ad hominem

Attack the content of my words not the my person. You know nothing about me or my literary skills so please refrain from your sorry excuse for clairvoyance.

What I said I through church teaching. Plain and simple. Event eh head of the congregation for the doctrine of faith (Cardinal Müller) affirmed this.

It isn t ad hominem. It shows. As it shows in many of us. Sometimes we just read before posting especially when the discussion has been going on for long.
Blue has been putting a lot of effort to try and follow posters and provide answers. He is a theologian.
There is nothing wrong in waiting and reading until we can reasonably catch up a bit.
He has been very patient throughout many threads discussing almost on a one by one basis.
Spend some time reading,that is all. No big deal.
We have our limitations and it is ok. We go learning at a different pace.