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

[Blue_Horizon]

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’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.

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”

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

You might like to look up your sources next time rather than rely on adrenalin and memory alone for your quotes and understanding.

 

[pnewton]

It is neither garbage, nor insulting, nor illogical. It’s just fact. … So assisted suicides become subjects of ‘accompaniment’ - hello Canada - and, as sure as God made little apples, homosexual and lesbian couples are next.

You do not get to define what other people think, much less call it fact. The Pope, the Argentinian bishop, even me and other posters that agree with them do not embrace homosexual marriage, or any of the other things you mention, lumping all together in a giant straw man. That is very narrow way of looking at the world. It makes for easy demonization but for terrible dialogue.

I don’t know how to say it any plainer.

Well, I know repeating opinions to not make them fact. Rather excessive rhetoric is used in place of reason. I have been asking for the last three years where the Church defined the doctrine that there was no chance for communion for those in irregular unions. I have seen syllogisms based on defined doctrine, and I always get the quote from St. John Paul where he called it a practice. That’s it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sex outside of marriage is always and everywhere a morally evil act regardless of whether it is specifically chosen or understood to be bad.

You still haven’t made it off the starting blocks Ender.

It is the very nature of a “moral act” that consent and understanding are present.
Look up a few more good Catholic Encyclopedia’s if you still cannot accept this.

Thus if consent or understanding are lacking there is no sin, only “fault” or “transgression” (material sin). This is still called 'sin" in a limited sense (a transgression of written law) , but it isn’t mortal sin (formal sin).

A “moral act” is much the same as a “human act”.

Try reading up on “human act” rather than “sin” in the New Advent site:
newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm

 

[pnewton]

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

I think the appeal to how the definition may just be using one’s own definition to make a point. In any case, if using the Hebrew word used in the commandment is the point, I would have to point out then that there are exceptions, as the same word is also used for accidental killings, and some of the capital punishment in the law, where “murder” was allowable.

So, If murder has more than one meaning, which the word does seem to be used in more than one way, the same logic could be applied to adultery. I am not say it should, just that the logic would be the same.

You’re creating categories that don’t exist.

This might well be what we will see as the implementation of Amoris Laetitia spreads. In fact, the documents admonishes us not to look at people as rigid categories, but as people, so maybe there is some expanded understanding of categories, less lumping and more individualizing.

 

[Wandile]

You might like to look up your sources next time rather than rely on adrenalin and memory alone for your quotes and understanding.

Again a cop out to facts I present, never a reply but just another ad hominem.

“The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.** The murderer**and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” (Catechism 2268)."

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Everything is factual that i presented not adrenaline filled despite your pathetic attempt at dismissing hard facts with such a poor ad hominem.

And for the Matthew verse about Moses :

"Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way.”

Seems like you need to learn biblical exegesis and the doctrines of the church better because you’re struggling to muster up any responses to the evidence I present excerpt childish and emotional ad hominem that seem to derive from frustration.

 

[Wandile]

I think the appeal to how the definition may just be using one’s own definition to make a point. In any case, if using the Hebrew word used in the commandment is the point, I would have to point out then that there are exceptions, as the same word is also used for accidental killings, and some of the capital punishment in the law, where “murder” was allowable.

So, If murder has more than one meaning, which the word does seem to be used in more than one way, the same logic could be applied to adultery. I am not say it should, just that the logic would be the same.

No it’s not translation that is the source of my statement on the 5th commandment being murder but rather catholic teaching (And pretty much all judeo-Christian teaching on it) hence sometimes it’s more accurately rendered as “thou shall not murder”.

“The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murdererand those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” (Catechism 2268)."

Read this section of the catechism further and it will detail that murder (illicit and unjust killing) is forbidden. It mentions this that abortion, excessive self defence and other things are forbidden because of this understanding.

This might well be what we will see as the implementation of Amoris Laetitia spreads. In fact, the documents admonishes us not to look at people as rigid categories, but as people, so maybe there is some expanded understanding of categories, less lumping and more individualizing.

Novelty has never been a good sign in the church. Just saying.

 

[Wandile]

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.

I know myself and I’m saying it’s not true for me. I know.

I would never touch on his intellectual capacity because I have never met him/her nor do I have some magical power that could illuminate me on such. I limit it to what I see and comment on what’s right or wrong on the topic at hand based on the info he and I present.

To say he won’t speak to me until my literary skills improve or some remark of that sort is arrogant to say the least. My interpretation of AL is consistent with Cardinal Burke and various other bishops and clergy. So what is he inadvertently saying about their literary skills too? Anyone who doesn’t see communion for divorced remarried in AL doesn’t have competent literary skills?

 

[Ender]

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.

This is not correct. He may not be culpable, but it is simply wrong to assert he is not culpable. Only if his ignorance is invincible is it valid to assert he is not culpable, and making a “sincere effort” does not render his ignorance invincible. This is especially true if his decision involves the rejection of church doctrine.
*1791 This **ignorance can often be imputed **to personal responsibility.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him…
*Ender

 

[edwayne]

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.

If an individual makes a sincere effort to inform his conscience, I don’t believe that God would allow him to remain in his error. Recall that even pagans can do the requirements of the law, without having the law, because they have the law written on their hearts; their consciences bearing witness to the natural law.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt from article:

15 Key Quotes From Cardinal Caffarra’s Interview on the ‘Dubia’

Catholic World Report has a translation of the entire interview here which is worth reading in full, but here below are 15 key quotations from the interview which shed light on the thinking of the four cardinals:

“[The dubia] were reflected on, at length, for months, and were discussed at length among ourselves. For my part, they were prayed about at length before the Blessed Sacrament.”

“Our concerns were twofold. The first was not to scandalize the little ones in the faith … The second concern was that no person, whether a believer or not a believer, should be able to find in the letter expressions that even remotely could appear in the slightest lacking in respect towards the Pope. The final text, therefore, is the fruit of quite a lot of revisions: texts [were] revised, rejected, corrected.”

“It is a fact — which only a blind man can deny — that there exists in the Church a great confusion, uncertainty, and insecurity caused by some paragraphs of Amoris laetitia … Some bishops have said A, others have said the contrary of A, with the intention of interpreting well the same texts.”

“A scandal on the part of many of the faithful was beginning to grow, as though we cardinals were behaving like the dogs who did not bark about whom the prophet speaks.”

“[Referring to letters from priests he has received] They find themselves carrying a load on their shoulders that they cannot bear. This is what I am thinking of when I talk about a great disorientation. And I am speaking of parish priests, but many lay faithful are even more confused.”

“[The dubia] seemed to us the simplest way [to resolve the contradictory interpretations]. The other question which arose was whether to do it in private or in public. We reasoned and agreed that it would be a lack of respect to make everything public right away. So it was done in private, and only once we had obtained certainty that the Holy Father would not respond did we decide to publicize it.”

“Some individuals continue to say that we are not being docile to the magisterium of the Pope. This is false and calumnious … I can be docile to the magisterium of the Pope if I know what the Pope is teaching in a matter of faith and of the Christian life. But this is exactly the problem: what the Pope is teaching on the fundamental points simply cannot be well understood, as the conflict of interpretations among bishops shows.”

“The division, already existing in the Church, is the cause of the letter, not its effect. The things unworthy within the Church, however, above all in a context such as this, are the insults and threats of canonical sanctions.”

“None of us wanted ‘to oblige’ the Holy Father to respond: in the letter, we spoke of [his] sovereign judgment. We simply and respectfully asked questions.”

“A Church which pays little attention to doctrine is not a more pastoral Church, but a more ignorant Church. The Truth of which we speak is not a formal truth, but a Truth that gives eternal salvation.”

“When I hear it said that it is only a pastoral change, and not doctrinal [in dealing with the sin of adultery] … it means to admit that yes, generally a triangle has three sides, but there is the possibility of constructing one of them with four sides. This is, I say, an absurdity.”

“If there is a clear point [in Bl. Cardinal Newman’s writing], it is that there is no evolution where there is a contradiction. If I say that S is P and then I say that S is not P, the second proposition does not develop the first one, but contradicts it.”

“One of the fundamental teachings of [Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis splendor] is that there exist acts which can, in and of themselves, be considered wrongful, regardless of the circumstances in which they are committed and the purpose which the agent intends. He [John Paul II] adds that denying this fact can lead to denying the meaning of martyrdom.”

“[On the conscience of the individual] I retain that this is the most important point of all. It is where we meet and clash with the central pillar of modernity.”

“[On whether Amoris laetitia allows a “creative interpretation of conscience” permitting “legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts” (dubium n. 5)] These are matters of a disturbing gravity. It would elevate private judgment to the ultimate criterion of moral truth. Never say to a person: ‘Always follow your conscience’, without adding immediately and always: ‘Love and seek the truth about the good.’ You would be putting into his hands the weapon most destructive to his own humanity.”

m.ncregister.com/52091/b

 

[Ender]

It is the very nature of a “moral act” that consent and understanding are present.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia this is incorrect. Sin is a morally bad act. Other conditions determine its imputability, but the sin exists in the nature of the act.
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.
*

Thus if consent or understanding are lacking there is no sin, only “fault” or “transgression” (material sin).

Perhaps if you read more closely we would be spared some of this. I just pointed to the distinction between formal and material sin in the post you objected to.An involuntary transgression of the law* even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin.*

This is still called 'sin" in a limited sense (a transgression of written law) , but it isn’t mortal sin (formal sin).

Nor were we speaking only of mortal sins, and while it may be true that all mortal sins are formal, it is not true that all formal sins are mortal. My comments were about sins per se - and are indeed accurate as I presented them.

Try reading up on “human act” rather than “sin” in the New Advent site:
newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm

It was the New Advent site I went to, and there is no need to look elsewhere as I am sure that what they assert in one place will not be contradicted in another.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

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

While there may be accountability for an act, there is also this: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800). Emphasis added.

This is the primacy of conscience. Aquinas held that a person who does not obey the certain judgment of his conscience “is certainly doomed”. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has said a certain judgment of conscience must be obeyed even above Ecclestical (i.e., papal) authority".

 

[Ender]

While there may be accountability for an act, there is also this: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1800). Emphasis added.

Yes, but this is exactly my point: there may be accountability for the errors our conscience makes. It is only where the conscience errs through invincible ignorance that it is always held to be not culpable for the sins committed.

This, by the way, relates to the most serious of the five concerns the cardinals raised with their dubia. According to Cardinal Caffara (one of the four authors):* There is a passage in Amoris laetitia, at n. 303, which is not clear; it seems – I repeat – seems – to admit the possibility that there is a true judgment of conscience (not invincibly erroneous; this has always been acknowledged by the Church) *in contradiction to that which the Church teaches as pertaining to the deposit of divine Revelation. Seems. And, therefore, we gave the Dubium to the Pope.
As he also said: In terms of the contingent consideration is the fact – which only the blind would deny – that there is enormous confusion, uncertainty, insecurity in the Church as a result of some paragraphs of Amoris laetitia.
How can such undeniable confusion be allowed to continue?

Ender

 

[TMC]

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.

I agree that the Church is “catholic,” and that means (in part) that there is room for varying opinions within the Church. But suggesting the Pope may be a heretic, or subject to being deposed is a call for schism. I also think that calling for electing a new Pope to undo this Pope’s actions is a schismatic suggestion.

 

[Thomas_White]

I agree that the Church is “catholic,” and that means (in part) that there is room for varying opinions within the Church. But suggesting the Pope may be a heretic, or subject to being deposed is a call for schism. I also think that calling for electing a new Pope to undo this Pope’s actions is a schismatic suggestion.

We need to be very careful in the use of certain words lest this interesting thread be closed.

 

[TMC]

We need to be very careful in the use of certain words lest this interesting thread be closed.

Yes, I agree. But I have not been the one suggesting that the Pope or his teachings are heretical, or need to be reversed by a future Pope.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, but this is exactly my point: there may be accountability for the errors our conscience makes. It is only where the conscience errs through invincible ignorance that it is always held to be not culpable for the sins committed.

This, by the way, relates to the most serious of the five concerns the cardinals raised with their dubia. According to Cardinal Caffara (one of the four authors):* There is a passage in Amoris laetitia, at n. 303, which is not clear; it seems – I repeat – seems – to admit the possibility that there is a true judgment of conscience (not invincibly erroneous; this has always been acknowledged by the Church) **in contradiction to that which the Church teaches as pertaining to the deposit of divine Revelation. *Seems. And, therefore, we gave the Dubium to the Pope.
As he also said: In terms of the contingent consideration is the fact – which only the blind would deny – that there is enormous confusion, uncertainty, insecurity in the Church as a result of some paragraphs of Amoris laetitia.
How can such undeniable confusion be allowed to continue?

Ender

I would agree this is likely the most serious concern. What it involves was made clear by Cardinal Schonborn when he said in an interview that Amoris Laetitia does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine, in continuity with previous popes and the Church’s Magisterium.

It does concern the primacy of conscience:

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church.” --Pope Benedict XVI (then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, 1968, on Guadium et spes, Part 1, Chapter 1.

To maintain that the judgment of conscience must conform to the teachings of the official Church is circular logic and simply incorrect. If it were so, it would negate the very voice of conscience.

 

[JPUSC]

The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of Christ. He is not Christ.

 

[Ginny89]

You do not get to define what other people think, much less call it fact. The Pope, the Argentinian bishop, even me and other posters that agree with them do not embrace homosexual marriage, or any of the other things you mention, lumping all together in a giant straw man. That is very narrow way of looking at the world. It makes for easy demonization but for terrible dialogue.

Well, I know repeating opinions to not make them fact. Rather excessive rhetoric is used in place of reason. I have been asking for the last three years where the Church defined the doctrine that there was no chance for communion for those in irregular unions. I have seen syllogisms based on defined doctrine, and I always get the quote from St. John Paul where he called it a practice. That’s it.

I have noticed your penchant for throwing unjustified accusations of “straw-man” arguments while committing the very same fallacy yourself in the same breathe with which you make the false accusation.

The poster nowhere commented that you or the pope embrace homosexual marriage. That is plain false.

Her very clear point was that the principle offered in justifying communion for the remarried would also justify communion for those in other gravely sinful situations, hence slippery slope. You were never the subject of her comment anywhere.

As to the pope, her claim as to his beliefs did not speak of homosexuality at all but rather to his personal support of this practice as understood in Argentina based on his own letter and not a guess as to his thought.

Your attacks are the straw man. You did it to me before, claiming straw-man without justification and injecting yourself into the subject of my comments as if I was discussing you. I failed to point it out then but here I see you do it to another poster and simply must point it out. Address the points people make. Inventing your own version of them and proceeding to “defeat” them is exactly the straw-man fallacy you appear to hate.