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

[Blue_Horizon]

Question from an outsider; is there any chance that this thing is partially about this:

Pope Francis, "And in this also pastoral care of marriage is a factor. And also the judicial problem of the nullity of marriage, that must be revisited, because the ecclesiastical courts aren’t enough for this."

Don’t pile onto me please , but is this idea that there are circumstances where people are absolutely convinced that they aren’t sinning by remarrying because they truly believe their first marriage is null (even if not judged that way by a tribunal) a way to expedite the process? Meaning, it would become more of an individual judgment with the help and guidance of a priest?

Half right methinks. It is only an individual judgement so far as approaching Jesus in Communion is concerned, Canon 916. Here I think you exactly right. The second half of the game is Canon 915 and the objective duties of the minister of Communion before servicing the approaching Communicant.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Homogeneity is overrated”. Really? In the context we’re speaking of, in faith and morals? I find that assertion absolutely absurd.

Keep your wig on Billy.

To see this as an application of faith and morals is just as logical, consistent and historical a view as yours. It is hardly absurd just because it’s repels your sensibilities.

Historically there was a time in the Early Church where soldiers were denied Communion perpetually on exactly the same doctrinal grounds you are obsessed with here re adultery.
Yet this was not homogeneously practised in all Churches. Eventually it faded out as Christian soldiering became acceptable with the conversion of Rome.

We are seeing the same thing happening with adultery today.
Just as all those involved in killing are not killers, so all those involved in adultery may not be adulterers.

We get it that you find this horrific…but your personal nightmare doesn’t make this view either illogical, absurd or unacceptable for a Catholic sorry.
Least of all Pope Francis.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe so, yes. This doesn’t alarm me as much, though there are a lot of logistical situations about it that would be hard to work out, it seems.

One, we have amazing capacities for self-deception and rationalization.

Two, how rigorous is the accompaniment? How does the priest determine if the person is lying? What about differing discernments? Does one search around until a priest can be found who says what they want to hear? Of course, if this is the case, it truly is on the person.

What if the other spouse thought it was valid? Though, this may not differ from current tribunal processes. Still seems pretty rotten. “Sorry honey, but I was lying when I said I was open to life. I’m free to remarry, and now I am open, and my priest agrees with me.”

Now, I understand what I listed above are abuses of the process, and it will be argued that one shouldn’t deny the innocents because of those who will abuse.

However, like you said, the individual discernment thing isn’t what everyone is talking about. It seems to me there are several different strains being argued.

Deception and simple all around ignorance due to the static of life is inescapable in this world and perfect justice will only be had in the next world.
That does not mean that there isn’t a lot more that needs to be done to overcome significant issues with the Tribunal process.
Sure, Accompanyment will have its own failings too, but it will readily prop up the areas that Tribunals fail in re reconciling good couples and families back to parish life whom we cannot afford to lose. Sure some goats and darnell will get through, Jesus knows that and gave his views on the matter.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

There is no possibility that the party innocent of the divorce has sinned.

Not according to Jewish law…

Whatever Jewish law is it is surely not relevant to this debate.

… and not according to a minor but valid Catholic interpretation of Mt 5:32 if you have been following what Billy unearthed about a week ago.

If you are referring to this it doesn’t support your case either.*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.”
*First, whatever the conditions of divorced women in Jesus’ time were, today women suffer neither the taint nor the disqualification of an adultress for being divorced. As another citation Billy helpfully provided makes clear, we are responsible for our own acts, not those of others.We can say succinctly and clearly that the evil of sin (malum culpae) is a disorder in a free action or omission
It should not require noting that one person cannot be said to have acted freely when the act was committed by someone else.

It seems readily apparent to me that Divorce is a sinful state that even the innocent party can be seen to contract and Reconciliation is the legal vehicle for exiting this state.

If divorce is a sinful state then how can reconciliation free one from it? The penitent will be just as divorced after confession as before. That is, the state is unchanged, and if the state was sinful before it remains sinful after. Beyond that, how does one enter a sinful state without having sinned? Talk of original sin is irrelevant here, or if you consider it relevant it would also apply to those who have not divorced, which hardly provides any useful distinction.

I have no idea why you think Trent has any relevance re my small observation here.

Trent referred to the divorced party as “innocent”, a rather clear statement that being divorced is not sinful.

Sinful states do not require confessing, but they do require reconciling. For divorce the vehicle is Reconciliation…just as its Baptism for a state of Original Sin.
The Sacrament of Confession (which is better named Reconciliation for this very reason) has a number of purposes both legal and moral and not just forgiveness of actual personal sin surely?

If there are other purposes I am not aware of them.1422 “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him…”

Divorce is clearly a sin whether one is actively or passively involved.

If divorce without remarrying was a sin the church would disallow it, but in fact she doesn’t. Rather there are times when she explicitly authorizes it, which makes it clearly not a sin.2383 … If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
Ender

 

[_Abyssinia]

‘Amoris Laetitia’: Are we seeing change by stealth?

by Fr Dwight Longenecker

The main problem with the apparent “change by stealth” approach has become apparent. Because ‘Amoris Laetitia’ remains ambiguous, different bishops are issuing contradictory guidelines. Their attempts to clarify the pope’s teaching will therefore only cause more confusion and contradiction.

cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/01/18/amoris-laetitia-seeing-change-stealth/

 

[pnewton]

There already exists a process in place to establish the validity of the marriage, that is the tribunal.

I am not going to argue if it is possible to know of the validity of marriage without evidence that will satisfy a tribunal. I know it is with moral certainty. So I cannot change. I am not asking you to change.

The point is that this is not a matter of doctrine. The process in place can be changed at the drop of a hat without contradicting doctrine. The Church could allow people to throw dice to determine and it would not contradict doctrine. Likewise, the Church can allow for a priest to make a decision independent of the tribunal and it does not contradict doctrine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am not going to argue if it is possible to know of the validity of marriage without evidence that will satisfy a tribunal. I know it is with moral certainty. So I cannot change. I am not asking you to change.

The point is that this is not a matter of doctrine. The process in place can be changed at the drop of a hat without contradicting doctrine. The Church could allow people to throw dice to determine and it would not contradict doctrine. Likewise, the Church can allow for a priest to make a decision independent of the tribunal and it does not contradict doctrine.

Your contention is that this is not a matter of doctrine. I really would like to see that proven. This is not just about making it ‘easier’ for people to have ‘medicine’. This affects doctrine of marriage itself, and of the reception of the Eucharist. It isn’t something ‘in a box’ and it isn’t something that has been around only for a couple of decades, or even a couple of centuries.

 

[JimG]

I believe so, yes. This doesn’t alarm me as much, though there are a lot of logistical situations about it that would be hard to work out, it seems.

One, we have amazing capacities for self-deception and rationalization.

Two, how rigorous is the accompaniment? How does the priest determine if the person is lying? What about differing discernments? Does one search around until a priest can be found who says what they want to hear? Of course, if this is the case, it truly is on the person.

What if the other spouse thought it was valid? Though, this may not differ from current tribunal processes. Still seems pretty rotten. “Sorry honey, but I was lying when I said I was open to life. I’m free to remarry, and now I am open, and my priest agrees with me.”

Now, I understand what I listed above are abuses of the process, and it will be argued that one shouldn’t deny the innocents because of those who will abuse.

However, like you said, the individual discernment thing isn’t what everyone is talking about. It seems to me there are several different strains being argued.

If a tribunal declares a marriage to be null from the beginning, or valid from the beginning, it’s ruling is binding unless overturned on appeal.

But suppose that we allow individual spouses to make that determination, in consultation with a priest. One spouse in consultation with a pastor determines the marriage to have been null from the beginning. The other spouse, in consultation with his or her own pastor, determines the marriage to have been valid and binding.

Whose decision prevails? A marriage not be simultaneously valid and null.

 

[TMC]

“Homogeneity is overrated”. Really? In the context we’re speaking of, in faith and morals? I find that assertion absolutely absurd. In that case, why even bother with the Eastern Catholic Churches? Why should those particular Churches be homogeneous in regards to papal primacy? If homogeneity is so overrated, they’d be better off simply recognizing their respective patriarchs instead, for the sake of not being homogeneous.

Many seem to be claiming that this practice of the Church (denying Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried) is comparable to disciplines such as those in various sui iuris Churches allowing for a married priesthood while others hold to a celibate priesthood. Or that it is comparable to disciplines that vary from diocese to diocese regarding Friday abstinence (i.e., some dioceses command the faithful to abstain from meat specifically, while others allow for a different kind of penance to be substituted on Fridays). These disciplines are not analogous.

St. John Paul II said in FC 84: "However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in *Sacramentum Caritatis *29 writes: If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires… The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church…"

Cardinal Müller, head of the CDF, has expressly affirmed that AL has not changed anything, and that this practice of the Church is not a mere discipline akin to how different dioceses have different abstinence requirements for Fridays. This isn’t a discipline that has no weight at all; doctrine can underlie disciplinary norms. As Cardinal Müller said last May:

AL has not changed anything in regards to the divorced and civilly remarried and the Eucharist; what was stated in FC, SC, and the 1994 letter from the CDF are still binding. However, some are interpreting Chapter 8 of AL (such as the Maltese bishops) in a way that goes much farther than even AL could theoretically allow for in interpretations by the Argentine bishops. The guidelines from the bishops of Kazakhstan further agree:

Yes, really. An excess focus on homogenity makes it difficult to focus on individual situations, and can prevent or discourage seeking the best solution for each individual. Pope Francis understands this, and clearly supports pastoring souls one at a time.

 

[dans0622]

… The Church could allow people to throw dice to determine and it would not contradict doctrine. …

Such an approach would contradict common sense as well as natural law (see CCC, #1959, for example).

Dan

 

[Stat_Crux]

To what list? A list of condemnations of Pope Francis? Your position is that the Pope is encouraging people to have sex outside of marriage and is disobedient to Christ? How many millions of Catholics would * you* misguide? Ever wondered? Would you call them to disobey the Pope and follow the four bishops? All 1.2 billion?

It really does not matter that 1.2 billion people support the Holy Father. It was the Holy Spirit that selected him and disobedient people will not force him to resign nor bring him down. Good luck with that to you and those who are challenging and presenting the Holy Father as a heretic.

You have completely misunderstood my position, and once again jumped to conclusions about me, my motivations and the right of people to ask questions in this situation. I am Catholic, and will remain Catholic no matter what happens in the future or how swift some are to try to slander me for posing valid questions.

You do your position no merit in resorting to such an overreaction instead of engaging in a genuine discussion.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is quite different from the objective way of the Dominicans and hence of Aquinas and hence of classic moral theologians and Canon Lawyers.

I wouldn’t necessarily think so. The objective way of the (contemplative) Dominicans et seq. have deep roots in classical Greek philosophy (in particular, Aristotle). My original comment is based on those same roots.

Without appeal to a common objective view of the world, allegedly accessible to reason beneath allegedly superficial messiness to the contrary, how would a Jesuit community typically go forward in times of discord, disagreement and contradiction?

The argument is ancient. “Allegedly accessible to reason”: Can man, through limited human language and reason, objectively know Truth? See for example CCC 251. Nevertheless, both Plato and Aristotle certainly thought so.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I agree that we should allow more discussion within the Church, and I respect your right to disagree with the Church on this issue. But I wonder why the same standard is not applied to disagreements on other issues? I have been posting here for years and have been regularly called names or invited to depart because I disagree with some Church teachings. Perhaps we should all agree to discuss all issues more openly and collegially?

But do I disagree with “the Church”? Or is the debate still ongoing as to what “the Church’s” official interpretation of AL actually is? For every Cardinal or Bishop who suggests that the teaching has changed, I can reference another who says it has not.

 

[billy15]

Historically there was a time in the Early Church where soldiers were denied Communion perpetually on exactly the same doctrinal grounds you are obsessed with here re adultery.
Yet this was not homogeneously practised in all Churches. Eventually it faded out as Christian soldiering became acceptable with the conversion of Rome.

Interesting. I’m genuinely curious, do you have a specific source you can share?

According to Dr. Robery Morey:

Since the earliest Fathers never condemned Christians for being in the military, and they never rebuked the state for maintaining an army or a police force, the early church never condemned the use of force per se. It is no wonder that we cannot find a single instance in the early church where a Christian was refused membership or communion because he was a soldier.

---

Cyprian made one reference that has been seized upon as proof he was a pacifist. He stated:

“The hand spotted with the sword and blood should not receive communion.” (V:488)

---

St. Basil stated in a.d. 370:
“Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder.” (XIV:605)
While he did not see any biblical reason or apostolic tradition for cautioning taking communion after killing in a war situation, he went on to say that perhaps it would be good for a short period to avoid communion after killing in war.

And if I’m “obsessed”, then turnabout’s fair play. One could call you “obsessed” with your position too based on the number of threads you’ve been involved with and started on the topic.

 

[TMC]

But do I disagree with “the Church”? Or is the debate still ongoing as to what “the Church’s” official interpretation of AL actually is? For every Cardinal or Bishop who suggests that the teaching has changed, I can reference another who says it has not.

If you disagree with AL, then you disagree with the Church. I don’t think there is really that much disagreement about what AL says. Most of the “confusion” is disagreement dressed up in different clothes.

 

[JimG]

Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) has said that he does not interpret Amoris Laetitia as authorizing reception of Communion by Catholics who are divorced and remarried. In other words, there is no change to either doctrine or practice. This was noted in the article which started this thread.

 

[JPUSC]

Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) has said that he does not interpret Amoris Laetitia as authorizing reception of Communion by Catholics who are divorced and remarried. In other words, there is no change to either doctrine or practice. This was noted in the article which started this thread.

That’s his interpretation. That’s not the final word.

Here’s an example of a Prefect’s decision and/or personal preference being undone from the top:

ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-sarah-promotes-advent-launch-of-ad-orientem-liturgical-renewal

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/vatican-rejects-cardinal-sarahs-ad-orientem-appeal

 

[Stat_Crux]

If you disagree with AL, then you disagree with the Church. I don’t think there is really that much disagreement about what AL says. Most of the “confusion” is disagreement dressed up in different clothes.

Who ever said I disagree with Amoris Laetitia? On the contrary, aside from wording in chapter 8 which is being exploited, it’s a fine work. A number of Bishops and Cardinals have already produced some beautiful application guidance which is entirely in continuity with the Church’s moral teaching. See here for example:

ncregister.com/daily-news/ordinariate-bishop-issues-pastoral-letter-on-amoris-laetitia

What I’m opposed to are those interpretations which seek to ignore the Church’s constant teaching and the scriptural basis on which it was presented, and instead propose a new principle which contradicts what has gone before. If a no becomes yes or bad becomes good, it’s not a development of doctrine:

As developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair presumption in their favour, so those which do but contradict and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a development in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate, and begins to disturb, the acquisitions gained in its previous history.

Cardinal Newman in Chapter 5 of Development of Christian Doctrine

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Whatever Jewish law is it is surely not relevant to this debate.

That one had me nearly in tears .

we are responsible for our own acts, not those of others

Oh dear…sin is bigger than this Ender. In fact we are victims of others actual sins and can be put into sinful states by others. Such sinful states may have little to do with personal responsibility

If you cannot accept or understand this ancient reality that the Church has always accepted (eg the stain of original sin, the old legal canonical consequences of being a bastard etc etc) then you cannot get too far in understanding these issues I suggest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If a tribunal declares a marriage to be null from the beginning, or valid from the beginning, it’s ruling is binding unless overturned on appeal.

But suppose that we allow individual spouses to make that determination, in consultation with a priest. One spouse in consultation with a pastor determines the marriage to have been null from the beginning. The other spouse, in consultation with his or her own pastor, determines the marriage to have been valid and binding.

Whose decision prevails? A marriage not be simultaneously valid and null.

Agreed, noone has ever said that Accompanyment decisions supplant those of a Tribunal.
Accompanyment at the most decides on Communion access…a pastoral decision the authority for which is supported by Canon Law.