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

[Ender]

To say that the concrete decision of an erroneous conscience must be culpably not well formed simply by reason of being at odds with Church Teaching… would gut the teaching of the primacy of conscience of all meaning.

I think this gets us closer to the real issue here. Simply being at odds with church teaching does not necessarily imply culpability, but it is much less clear that, for a Catholic, being at odds with church teaching because one has rejected it does not imply culpability.

So the question is: when does the primacy of conscience justify us in rejecting church doctrine and acting in opposition to her teaching?

We know that “1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”,but how can we justifiably claim to be certain of our conscience if it leads us to reject the church’s teaching? We may well believe we are right and the church is wrong, but it doesn’t seem credible to assert we can be certain of it.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

Bishop Steven Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Peter, for ex-Anglicans, has issued a pastoral letter on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ holding that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may receive Communion only if they commit to "complete chastity."

In a new pastoral letter on the implementation of Amoris Laetitia, another Catholic bishop has concluded that the pontiff’s document on the family does not change the Church’s existing rules for the divorced and civilly remarried, and that Catholics in that situation may receive Communion only if they commit themselves to “complete chastity.”

“A civilly remarried couple, if committed to complete continence, could have the Eucharist available to them, after proper discernment with their pastor and making recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation,” wrote Bishop Steven Lopes, head of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, a structure created to welcome former Anglican communities into the Catholic Church.

“Unless and until the civilly remarried honestly intend to refrain from sexual relations entirely, sacramental discipline does not allow for the reception of the Eucharist,” Lopes wrote.

Lopes joins other American bishops, including Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, who have issued similar directives.

cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/01/17/another-bishop-says-chastity-key-communion-debate/

“intend to refrain from sexual relations entirely”

That’s not chastity, that is celibacy.

 

[JPUSC]

How do the Maltese guidelines reconcile with the following quotes? Can they be reconciled? If they can be reconciled, then I suppose there is not a problem here but if they cannot be reconciled, then aren’t concerns justified?

I’ve seen an astonishing level of concern and criticism regarding these Maltese guidelines since they were released.

Familiaris Consortio
(84)

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

Sacramentum Caritas
(29)
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html#The_Eucharist_and_the_Sacraments

‘LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL’

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Catechism of the Catholic Church
(1650)
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

Most of those are Apostolic Exhortations, which don’t carry as much weight as other documents.

Q. Can one Pope abrogate a previous Pope’s decision?

A. A Pope may abrogate a previous Pope’s decision on applicable non-dogmatic matters since he has the same authority the previous Pope had. On infallible matters, a Pope may not abrogate a previous Pope’s decisions.

mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/vatican_view/vatican_view_q_and_a.htm#Q.%20Can%20Popes%20contradict%20each%20other?

 

[billy15]

When you understand the difference between malum culpae and malum poenae we will be able to fruitfully discuss your confusions here.

Blue, I may not have a masters in theology, or be as learned as others on this forum or within the Church hierarchy, but I am a Christian man doing my best to learn how best to be a faithful adopted son of God. The Catechism was released for this purpose, to help the laity. I often go outside the Catechism to get other opinions and insight. I don’t claim to know each and every theological term inside and out, but I’m here to learn, and I believe I have more than just a rudimentary understanding of the Catholic theology on sin.

I love St. Thomas Aquinas, and have been delving into him the past few years. There is obviously much more in his corpus for me to study, but I think it says something that saints like St. Dominic Savio and Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich (she only had an English degree from a local New Jersey college) were not as learned to understand certain concepts, yet made valid points in their writings. “Death before sin!”, as St. Dominic said. Blunt and simple? Sure. The disposition all Christians should have instead of looking for an easy way out? Yes, absolutely.

Anyways, I assume in mentioning malum culpae and malum poenae, you’re referring to the first part of the Summa, question 48, specifically articles 5 and 6. Suarez says in his Disputationes Metaphysicae:

We can say succinctly and clearly that the evil of sin (malum culpae) is a disorder in a free action or omission–that is, a lack of due perfection as regards a free action–whereas the evil of punishment (malum poenae) is any other lack of a due good that is contracted or inflicted because of sin.

One commentator on Question 48 cites Herbert McCabe for another perspective on the meaning of malum poenae:

[In the Fifth Article,] Aquinas holds short of claiming that every such occurrence of evil is a punishment; rather, in the light of the action of divine providence, he claims it has the character of the punishment. When we might say that we are suffering from the afflictions of life, we are reflecting a similar position to Aquinas; it is as if we are being punished. On this line of thought, Herbert McCabe suggests a more fitting translation of *malum poenae *to be “evil suffered”.

Brian Davies in his book The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil says:

…I am happy to distinguish between naturally occurring evil and moral evil- or, as I prefer to call them, “evil suffered” and “evil done”. I take evil suffered to be evil that afflicts individuals as non-rational things in the world eat away at them in various ways- badness that happens to people… I take evil done to consist in freely conceiving to act badly and/or actually doing so. This I take to be self-inflicted evil- badness that consists in moral failure. (p. 176)

My question to you, Blue, is in what way do you believe that malum culpae and malum poenae relate to this issue regarding the divorced and civilly remarried (who are living together more uxorio after being unable to attain a decree of nullity) who wish to receive the Eucharist without living in continence?

At this moment, I see no connection except that the theoretical woman spoken of in Matt. 5:32 has suffered an evil by being made an adulteress, in that “she bears the taint and the disqualifications of the adulteress in virtue of a decision made not by her but by her husband, and it is this injustice that Jesus condemns.” She is suffering from an evil that her husband brought about by his unjust and evil action. I think we can both agree this woman would be able to receive Communion today.

However, if that same woman at a later time turns around and fornicates with another man who is not her rightful husband, she has done evil, as Davies notes. This was a “free action”, according to Suarez. I believe, as does St. John Paul, the four Cardinals, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and Blessed Pope Paul VI that:

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. (Humane Vitae, 14)

 

[billy15]

Peter Kreeft agrees with this sentiment in a footnote to the Sixth Article of St. Thomas’ Question 48, in which St. Thomas writes, “On the contrary, A wise workman chooses a less evil in order to prevent a greater…” Kreeft’s footnote in his “Summa of the Summa” reads:

St. Thomas is not saying here that it is wise or good to commit a lesser fault to prevent a greater one (for this is never necessary; our own faults are prevented by our own choices, and others’ faults are others faults, not ours), but that it is wise and good sometimes to inflict the lesser kind of evil, pain, to prevent the greater kind, fault. Thus punishment, which must be painful in some way, can be morally good if it is both deserved and is aimed at deterring the one punished from future faults. The principle of “the lesser of two evils” means (1) that we often must tolerate or allow the lesser evil to prevent the greater one, and (2) that we should sometimes inflict the lesser kind of evil to prevent the greater kind (above), but not (3) that we should commit little sins to prevent big sins.

Even if one sees adultery as “little” or venial, it is never necessary that one engages in fornication (that is, adultery between the divorced and civilly remarried) in order to prevent the perceived great fault of failing in promoting the welfare of a family, namely the children. In the case of those who are divorced and civilly remarried (and are living together more uxorio after being unable to attain a decree of nullity) and who wish to receive the Eucharist without living in continence, it would seem that if they freely engage in sexual activity, this action could rightly be called the evil of sin, malum culpae.

Also, Abyssinia, I think the link you posted is very interesting, and raises a very valid point. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Pulvis]

This really isn’t new, the first time this was discussed in print was last year:
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303?eng=y

"ROME, May 25, 2016 – They are the key paragraphs of the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.” And they are also the most intentionally ambiguous, as proven by the multiple and contrasting interpretations and practical applications that they immediately received.

They are the paragraphs of chapter eight that in point of fact give the go-ahead for communion for the divorced and remarried.

That this is where Pope Francis would like to arrive is by now evident to all. And besides, he was already doing it when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

But now it is being discovered that some key formulations of “Amoris Laetitia” also have an Argentine prehistory, based as they are on a pair of articles from 2005 and 2006 by Víctor Manuel Fernández, already back then and even more today a thinker of reference for Pope Francis and the ghostwriter of his major texts."

 

[JPUSC]

A little clarification on my contribution. The Pope does not advocate Communion for homosexual/lesbian couples, nor for assisted suicides. He does however advocate Communion for remarried divorcees who are sexually active, something he made very clear in his endorsement of the Argentinian bishops’ guidelines of Sept 2016. I can do an analysis of that text if you wish although it’s already been done by others.

AL however can be cited as support for those who ***do ***advocate Communion for Catholics in other irregular situations, as has happened in Canada. The principle invoked is that if one feels it morally impossible to keep a commandment one isn’t obliged to keep it. Again, I can do an analysis of AL to prove the point although - again - it’s already been very ably done by others.

My final point is that IMHO the majority of Catholics will come around to these practices. I agree that orthodox Catholics won’t if one accepts ‘orthodox’ in the sense of Catholics who will not go against the perennial teaching of the Church regardless of which ecclesiastic tells them to.

Adultery is a mortal sin, as defined by traditional Catholic teaching. If people in that situation can receive Communion, then I personally feel that I too can receive Communion while not in a state of grace as well as disregard a bunch of other rigid rules such as the obligation to attend Mass

 

[billy15]

Most of those are Apostolic Exhortations, which don’t carry as much weight as other documents.

That’s not necessarily true. Fathers John Trigilio, Jr. and Kenneth Brighenti give a good overview:

The second way that an infallible teaching is taught to Catholics is through the Ordinary Magisterium, which is the more common and typical manner, hence the reason why it’s called ordinary. This teaching of the popes is consistent, constant, and universal through their various documents, letters, papal encyclicals, decrees, and so on…

When popes write papal documents (anything authored by a pope), the title they use to refer to themselves the most is Servant of the Servants of God (Servus Servorum Dei in Latin). St. Gregory the Great (590–604) was the first pope to use this title. Check out the different types of papal documents from the most solemn on down:

• Papal Bulls
• Papal Encyclicals
• Papal Briefs
• Apostolic Exhortations
• Apostolic Constitutions
• Apostolic Letters
• Motu Proprios

Prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), more commonly known as Vatican II, the type of papal document the pope chose determined how much authority he intended to exercise. The preceding list indicates the order of authority that various papal documents traditionally had.

For example, the lowest level was the Motu Proprio, which is a Latin phrase meaning of his own initiative. Somewhat like an international memo, it’s a short papal letter granting a dispensation or making a modification applying to the whole world but on a disciplinary matter only, such as an issue that has nothing to do with doctrine.

An example of Motu Proprio was when John Paul II granted permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass (the order and structure of the Mass as it was celebrated between the Council of Trent and Vatican II). On the other hand, Papal Bulls were considered the highest authority.

Since Vatican II, however, the content and context of the document determine the degree of authority and not just the type of papal document. If the pope intends to definitively teach the universal Church on a matter of faith or morals, then he is expressing his supreme authority as head of the Church.

When John Paul II issued his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, he officially declared that the Catholic Church has no power to ordain women. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra papal statement, but it’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and thus, according to the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching is infallible.

 

[JPUSC]

That’s not necessarily true. Fathers John Trigilio, Jr. and Kenneth Brighenti give a good overview:

Yes, I know. It’s right there in the middle.

So Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation cancels out Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation.

 

[pnewton]

Adultery is a mortal sin, as defined by traditional Catholic teaching. If people in that situation can receive Communion, then I personally feel that I too can receive Communion while not in a state of grace as well as disregard a bunch of other rigid rules such as the obligation to attend Mass

But this begs the point. One can commit adultery as defined by Catholic teaching and still be in a state of grace.

 

[JPUSC]

But this begs the point. One can commit adultery as defined by Catholic teaching and still be in a state of grace.

If the Catholic Church can bend the words of Jesus in the Bible, then I can do whatever I want to do

 

[pnewton]

No it’s not translation that is the source of my statement on the 5th commandment being murder but rather catholic teaching

I totally understand. Yes, Church teaching is clear, which by the way, is a good argument as to why we need an active, authoritative Church.

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

While I think “novelty” is just rhetoric, it is worth noting that every Church council taught something that could be considered new at least to some degree. As I do not think Pope Francis is offering any new doctrine, but just a new way of looking at our faith, I would not call this novelty. Whether it is good or bad, well, my crystal ball is out of order and my horoscope didn’t mention it. I will live, and wait, and see.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Then call me down on it. Please. And you are right. He only implied that by introducing all these new things as if they actually were related. I missed that point. I have no right to take what is implied instead of what was literally said.

But yes, there are a lot of arguments defended that no one makes. I shouldn’t do this. No one should. It just muddies the water.

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.

I slippery slope argument must have some historical justification to have validity. I do not see it here. Rather, Amoris Laetitia reaffirms the teaching teaching on homosexuality. I will let the moderators decide if this thread of thought justifies expanding the topic to included a broad range of morality.

All this dittoing seems ironic and appropriate.

 

[Thomas_White]

I would love to.
Well,I can understand what you are saying about the nuns because I grew up kind of like that.
And that is true,sometimes we " know" something but to put it into words…that is another story.
I will look it up as soon as I can. And when the time comes,we’ ll have it there.
Thanks,Thomas

graciew–I will attempt to help in an understanding of anamnesis. The way it is presented by Ratzinger in his essay Conscience and Truth does assume some understanding of philosophy, particularly from Plato to Aquinas. I recall your mentioning Aquinas. So…

In Plato’s Meno, Socrates concludes that virtue is knowledge. As such, it is objective, even absolute. But Plato also believed in reincarnation and maintained that wisdom and knowledge gained during past lives could be recalled from memory. This is anamnesis, or the recollection of the past, as Plato uses the term. “Do this in memory of me” would be an example of anamnesis in its more customary modern usage.

Although Plato believed in reincarnation, he does not limit understanding to recollection. However, when he does speak of memory as a recollection of knowledge from past lives, it of course is not the voice inscribed by God that man hears in his heart (CCC 1776). This is the essential difference in the way Plato and Ratzinger use the word anamnesis. From Ratzinger’s essay:

“At this point, the whole radicality of today’s dispute over ethics and conscience, its center, becomes plain. It seems to me that the parallel in the history of thought is the quarrel between Socrates-Plato and the sophists in which the fateful decision between two fundamental positions has been rehearsed. There is, on the one hand, the position of confidence in man’s capacity for [objective] truth. On the other, there is a worldview in which man alone sets standards for himself [subjective]”.

This ancient dispute, which Ratzinger explains continues right up to the present day, contrasts man’s capacity for objectively knowing truth, or the good, against the idea that man sets standards for himself, i.e., that ethics (truth, virtue) is subjective. Ratzinger uses Plato’s theory of recollection only as an analogy to explain that the voice one hears in one’s heart (that is, the voice heard in the conscience) is (in a sense and only a sense), a “recollection” not from past lives but from the law inscribed by God on man’s heart. This truth is thus innate and an aspect of man’s nature. It is in this way that a person naturally knows right from wrong, and he knows it from the voice heard in his heart. It is of course not literally a voice but a feeling, like an intuition, its meaning understood by the intellect. And in this way even a six-year old can know right from wrong. Since moral law is inscribed by God on the heart is why “a person must obey the certain judgment of conscience” (CCC 1800) even when it is contrary to formal teaching or even against ecclesiastical authority. It cannot err. Only man can err.

The formulation is idiosyncratic, or unique, in that objective (in this case absolute) truth is subjectively known in man’s heart. With a study of philosophy from Plato to Aquinas, the terms used are more easily understood, but even an understanding of the meaning of Objective and Subjective would probably suffice. There are two main threads, or modes of thought–from Plato to Augustine and from Aristotle to Aquinas. But this is getting way ahead of ourselves.

 

[JPUSC]

Lol!!! They should just move to Malta and Buenos Aires then! I hear the rules are more relaxed there

 

[pnewton]

All this dittoing seems ironic and appropriate.

 

[JPUSC]

I slippery slope argument must have some historical justification to have validity. I do not see it here. Rather, Amoris Laetitia reaffirms the teaching teaching on homosexuality. I will let the moderators decide if this thread of thought justifies expanding the topic to included a broad range of morality.

You can’t have it both ways.

If the divorced and remarried can receive Communion, then everyone should be entitled to it too. You can’t allow one group of people to commit a certain mortal sin while excluding the rest.

Missing Sunday Mass isn’t even as grave as adultery, but the Church says it’s a mortal sin and you are condemned to hell forever if you were to die in a state of mortal sin.

 

[pnewton]

Essentially, this comes down to whether the law of non-contradiction is real or not. If it isn’t true for the church as with everyone else, why exactly is Buddhism wrong?

No, it does not. It has not been established as doctrine that it is impossible for a person in an irregular situation, who is still in a state of grace, though in a state of objective adultery, to receive communion. The law of non-contradiction only applies when the condition that is contradicted is exactly the same. A thing cannot be both x and not x, but x must be the exactly the same.

I really thing Pope Francis understands this.

The family synod rejected those who wanted communion opened for the divorced and remarried across the board, but it also rejected those that wanted it defined as *doctrine *that such a one was forbidden from communion. Yes, this was one thing pushed for by a few and the synod.

 

[ProdigalSun]

’No turning back’

The theologian widely acknowledged as the principal ghostwriter of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, says the Jesuit pontiff has already begun changing the Church in ways that cannot be reversed.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, said that, even if the pope’s adversaries tried to turn back the clock in the next pontificate, the People of God would not stand for it.

“The people are with (Francis) and not with his few adversaries,” he said in an exclusive published Sunday in the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera.

The 52-year-old Fernandez is one of the pope’s principal theological advisers. Francis, who had to fight Vatican opposition to name his fellow countryman university rector in 2009, appointed the theologian titular archbishop only two months after he became pope.

The archbishop said the 78-year-old Jesuit pope is patiently laying the groundwork for reforms that cannot be undone.

“No, there’s no turning back,” he told the paper’s highly respected political analyst, Massimo Franco.

“If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong,” the archbishop said.

"For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned,” he added.

Archbishop Fernandez is one of the leading theological aides to the pope, who last year was appointed to a special commission inside the Synod of Bishops…

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

“The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up."

international.la-croix.com/news/no-turning-back/1220

Sorry Bud but I don’t think so! This Pope seems to be trying to change doctrine and dogma which can not change. Why do you think the next pope to come along will not wipe the Francis plate clean and reiterate what the previous popes have stated and that is that divorced and remarried are committing adultery. Adultery is a mortal sin. Anyone in a state of Mortal Sin Should not take the Eucharist.Anything the Pope does to change this will ultimately fail.

 

[twf]

Lol!!! They should just move to Malta and Buenos Aires then! I hear the rules are more relaxed there

Or in Rome itself. See the new pastoral guidelines from the Cardinal Vicar.