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

[edwayne]

My understanding is that I lack understanding. I guess I lean toward the law of gradualness. A great deal that Ginny said I actually agree with, but I perhaps prefer a greater, merciful time-table. Let us take the worse case scenario.

A person in a totally valid marriage, marginal Catholic married to marginal Catholic, becomes a classic prodigal son, running off with his mistress. Ten years later, a serious emotional events brings that person back to the Church, now married to this mistress with a couple of kids that need to be raised. His annulment is either denied, or he does not apply as it is obvious it should be denied. Through the counseling time, the priest understands the man earnestly desires communion with Christ (even more than receiving communion). He really wants the Sacrament of Reconcilliation for his adultery. Yet he just can’t wrap his head around the Church’s teaching that he is still committing adultery, as he still is intimately in love with his wife and family.

Yes, I think such a person should strive to live as brother and sister. However, I am still on the fence as to whether the law of gradualness might permit the desire to make this commitment because of a desire to put Christ above all, including family might allow the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and admittance to communion. I do believe some things are close enough to be humanly impossible to consider them so, Trent not withstanding, as that council had the caveat, “even for one that is justified and constituted in grace.” It mirrors the words of St. Paul, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

I might be splitting hairs, which is why I hesitate to have an opinion. In any case, I do believe in this case continence needs to be where the goal, as that which God requires, as it is a clear case of continuing adultery. I equally being that the grace of God is necessary for such a life, and may be necessary even to reach the point of resolving to live such a life.

So clearly, if I believe that, I think most in similar situations, who simply do not put a priority on spiritual growth, should still not receive. As I said, I can see the Malta resolution being taken more broadly that is right.

While I struggle with how Amoris Laetitia is to be interpreted and applied, I very much appreciate your candid view and example. Very articulate post.

 

[JimG]

It is precisely because we acknowledge the authority of the pope that we are struggling - specifically, trying to reconcile what the Church has taught clearly in the past but now appears to be overturned. This is why the appeals for clarity are going to him as the chief bishop, the successor of Peter… exactly because we recognize his authority.

And I would add, it is not clear that anything has been overturned. The Prefect of the CDF believes that Amoris Laetitia changes neither doctrine nor practice. So do numerous bishops who have published guidelines for A.L. upholding prior Church teaching. Can it be said that an ambiguous footnote overturns existing doctrine? Is that how doctrine or practice is changed? That is not apparent to me nor to many others more knowledgeable than me.

 

[_Abyssinia]

My understanding is that I lack understanding. I guess I lean toward the law of gradualness. A great deal that Ginny said I actually agree with, but I perhaps prefer a greater, merciful time-table. Let us take the worse case scenario.

A person in a totally valid marriage, marginal Catholic married to marginal Catholic, becomes a classic prodigal son, running off with his mistress. Ten years later, a serious emotional events brings that person back to the Church, now married to this mistress with a couple of kids that need to be raised. His annulment is either denied, or he does not apply as it is obvious it should be denied. Through the counseling time, the priest understands the man earnestly desires communion with Christ (even more than receiving communion). He really wants the Sacrament of Reconcilliation for his adultery. Yet he just can’t wrap his head around the Church’s teaching that he is still committing adultery, as he still is intimately in love with his wife and family.

Yes, I think such a person should strive to live as brother and sister. However, I am still on the fence as to whether the law of gradualness might permit the desire to make this commitment because of a desire to put Christ above all, including family might allow the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and admittance to communion. I do believe some things are close enough to be humanly impossible to consider them so, Trent not withstanding, as that council had the caveat, “even for one that is justified and constituted in grace.” It mirrors the words of St. Paul, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

I might be splitting hairs, which is why I hesitate to have an opinion. In any case, I do believe in this case continence needs to be where the goal, as that which God requires, as it is a clear case of continuing adultery. I equally being that the grace of God is necessary for such a life, and may be necessary even to reach the point of resolving to live such a life.

So clearly, if I believe that, I think most in similar situations, who simply do not put a priority on spiritual growth, should still not receive. As I said, I can see the Malta resolution being taken more broadly that is right.

The problem is, with this type of rationale, people could use it for almost issue, from contraception, to same-sex relationships, to all manner of issues. It’s a slippery slope and if continence can just be a goal or something to “strive” for for a divorced and remarried couple, then what about the woman who is worried about getting pregnant and using contraception with her spouse? She could argue her reasons for why she uses contraception, and how eventually she may want to use NFP or learn more about it but uses contraception for whatever reason and she could argue her case.

I don’t believe it is in keeping with Catholic teaching at all to just strive or have goal but not to give up what is sinful, if you want to be in a state of grace to receive Communion. People have different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, but I don’t think having a sexual relationship with a spouse with no annulment is any less of a sin now, than it was before Amoris Latetia was published.

You can’t just keep looking at pornography but have a goal to end to in the future sometime, you can’t just have a goal that you will continue to use contraception but have the goal to end it in the future, and you can’t have the goal of living in continence in the future but not intending to stop sexual relations at the moment with the spouse in a remarriage where there is no annulment.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And I would add, it is not clear that anything has been overturned. The Prefect of the CDF believes that Amoris Laetitia changes neither doctrine nor practice. So do numerous bishops who have published guidelines for A.L. upholding prior Church teaching. Can it be said that an ambiguous footnote overturns existing doctrine? Is that how doctrine or practice is changed? That is not apparent to me nor to many others more knowledgeable than me.

This report comes from May 2016.

This is what Cardinal Muller is reported to have said:

Referring to the Pope’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Cardinal Müller said that “if Amoris Laetitia wanted to overturn such a deep-rooted and important discipline, it would have expressed this precisely and given reasons for it.”

So based on what Cardinal Muller said, Amoris Latetia does not overturn previous discipline.

He also is reported to have said:

The document’s 351st footnote, he added, does not refer to Holy Communion for divorced Catholics who have entered into a subsequent civil marriage.

“Without going into details, it is enough to point out that this footnote refers to objective situations of sin in general, not to the specific case of civilly remarried divorcees,” he said. “The situation of the latter has peculiar features which distinguishes it from other situations … The standard of FC Familiaris Consortio] 84 and SC Sacramentum Caritatis] 29 and their application in all cases is still valid.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=28253

(Bold text my emphases).

That is massively important.

 

[kyrie03]

The first refuge of a bad argument is to call the other side ignorant.

I am not necessarily referring to posters here when I say that some are challenging the Pope’s authority.

The Pope has spoken authoritatively, and continues to do so. As I said, I believe we have a duty to grow in understanding, and to dissent if that is where our understanding leads us. But, again, I do not believe the root problem that has driven so much discussion of AL is a lack of understanding.

I know Pope John Paul II has spoken authoritatively about impossibility of Eucharist for D/R, non-annulled, sexually active. I am ignorant of Pope Francis speaking authoritatively about this. Could you please point out to me to the times he has done so?

I, too, desire to grow in understanding, to conform my understanding to that of Christ’s Church under the authority and guidance of our Holy Father. The Dubia’s purpose is to preserve unity, to put an end to the dissenting interpretations. Only our Holy Father can clear up this confusion.

 

[TMC]

I know Pope John Paul II has spoken authoritatively about impossibility of Eucharist for D/R, non-annulled, sexually active. I am ignorant of Pope Francis speaking authoritatively about this. Could you please point out to me to the times he has done so?

I, too, desire to grow in understanding, to conform my understanding to that of Christ’s Church under the authority and guidance of our Holy Father. The Dubia’s purpose is to preserve unity, to put an end to the dissenting interpretations. Only our Holy Father can clear up this confusion.

Don’t play games, its beneath both of us for you to pretend you are unfamiliar with the Pope’s teachings.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is, with this type of rationale, people could use it for almost issue, from contraception, to same-sex relationships, to all manner of issues. It’s a slippery slope and if continence can just be a goal or something to “strive” for for a divorced and remarried couple, then what about the woman who is worried about getting pregnant and using contraception with her spouse?

It is not a rationale. It is a lifestyle, for me at least. You may already be a saint, having arrived at having no attachment to sin. For me, there are still things I desire to have more desire for. “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” (Romans 7:15).

 

[Ginny89]

Don’t play games, its beneath both of us for you to pretend you are unfamiliar with the Pope’s teachings.

Dont play games. Its beneath you to pretend you have teachings you can point to. What you have is “familiarity” with what Pope Francis wants from his private letters and the conduct of the synod and third-party reports from people like Cardinal Kasper. Catholicism is not guessing what a pope wishes but following what the church teaches. Until Pope Francis TEACHES something contradicting John Paul II you are disobeying papal authority and ecumenical councils by going against familiaris consortio and Trent (and frankly, the Bible too).

 

[pnewton]

… you are disobeying papal authority and ecumenical councils by going against familiaris consortio and Trent (and frankly, the Bible too).

Where is the disobedience? Silence has not been ordered (as was the case with women priests). If one is not receiving communion, or distributing communion, contrary to papal authority, then what is the disobedience?

 

[Ginny89]

Where is the disobedience? Silence has not been ordered (as was the case with women priests). If one is not receiving communion, or distributing communion, contrary to papal authority, then what is the disobedience?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but TMC’s position and your own are very different. He is claiming that Pope Francis has taught something that Pope JPII and others taught the opposite which he cant cite. I am just serving him his own medicine for accusing others of “disobeying” the pope which he can’t prove.

If Kyrie and those who believe like him are truly disobeying the pope then TMC and those who believe like him are truly disobeying the pope.

That is the problem with claiming that there is a new teaching tjat contradicts a past teaching. Catholics then have to start picking and choosing WHICH pope to obey. Then the point of the papal office is lost.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but TMC’s position and your own are very different. He is claiming that Pope Francis has taught something that Pope JPII and others taught the opposite which he cant cite. I am just serving him his own medicine for accusing others of “disobeying” the pope which he can’t prove.

Got it.

 

[pnewton]

That is the problem with claiming that there is a new teaching tjat contradicts a past teaching. Catholics then have to start picking and choosing WHICH pope to obey.

I was thinking this afternoon how much I would like to hear what Pope John Paul would say. He established the devotion of Divine Mercy for this century, balancing both orthodox doctrine and the endless mercy of God. I have too absolutes. We absolutely can never strive to be too holy ourselves, or to be too merciful to others.

 

[kyrie03]

Don’t play games, its beneath both of us for you to pretend you are unfamiliar with the Pope’s teachings.

You are mistaken. I joined my signature to thousands asking Pope Francis for clarification. Are the signers of the Dubia playing games? Are the theologians who sent an appeal playing games? Is it possible that those who express confusion about how to reconcile FC and various interpretations of AL are sincere?

When has the Pope spoken authoritatively about this is my honest question.

It’s disheartening to read various interpretations and speculations that divide Catholics from each other. The lack of clarification is destructive to charity and unity amongst the faithful. We NEED the voice of Peter to confirm the brethren in the truth.

 

[Ginny89]

I was thinking this afternoon how much I would like to hear what Pope John Paul would say. He established the devotion of Divine Mercy for this century, balancing both orthodox doctrine and the endless mercy of God. I have too absolutes. We absolutely can never strive to be too holy ourselves, or to be too merciful to others.

John Paul II made me a Catholic. Actually, no. Not a Catholic. But he made me take catholicism seriously. He converted me. I feel so bad with my broken faith now, wonder if he looks at me from that window of heaven that Pope BXVI referred to at his funeral, disappointed and shaking his head. Not just Divine mercy devotion but even his encyclical on mercy…I miss that man. The problem with these debates is that it makes us merciless in a way. Hard hearted. But seeing the church as not a pillar, not stable, has created its own suffering to very many of us. This is the constituency the 4 cardinals advocate for. I almost would rather the merciless but true church than the merciful but wavering because in this world, I need the church to be true because I need her promises of a better life to be true.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have no problem standing before God on judgment day professing that I believed Pope Francis to be mistaken… either that or I would have to profess believing that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to be mistaken. They cannot both be correct.

Logic suggests:
(a) They can all be “wrong” (i.e. making applied, prudential disciplinary rulings) OR
(b) they are reconcilable but you do not yet have the education or intellectual octane rating to see it.

 

[pnewton]

John Paul II made me a Catholic. Actually, no. Not a Catholic. But he made me take catholicism seriously. He converted me.

Even though I too am a convert under this great saint, John MacArthur had more to do with helping me convert. Still, he is my favorite saint. In fact, my Christmas present this year was a gorgeous picture of him for the mantle.

I almost would rather the merciless but true church than the merciful but wavering because in this world, I need the church to be true because I need her promises of a better life to be true.

While I understand the emotion behind this statement, it must not be. Without mercy and compassion we are Pharisees, just as sure as without truth we are moral relativists. Jesus had far harsher words toward the Pharisees than he did the Sadducees. I would suggest the best course is that of patience. Time will tell. I will be surprised if this exhortation makes more than a ripple in the communion line, as so few people could be affected, and even fewer will be. Let’s face it. Today we have people receiving communion that shouldn’t. So, we may have a few more,* at most*. One point that has been said repeatedly is that this is not permission for the remarried to receive communion precisely* because* the Church has not abandoned her teaching. My own priest has expressed a desire for better integration of remarried since I met him. Yet even though he is what you might call liberal on this subject, he told me that so far everyone who has talked to him about it (the remarried people) simply aren’t the people the Pope is talking about (in his understanding). I am sure this will happen more often than not.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

No, I am recalling the lecture side comments of my elderly Prof of History who specialised
in the Early Church 35 years ago. Cannot remember the bibliography he provided.

Anyways here is a start I found in 20 secs on the Net:
patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/07/08/the-early-church-and-military-service/

Clearly they took the 5th Commandment (Thou shall not kill as opposed to Thou shall not murder) just as seriously as some here take Thou shall not commit adultery.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Which poster/s do you think are suggesting the pope doesn’t have the authority? Perhaps you are not understanding the reasons for requesting clarification. Read the Dubia -the Cardinals are clear that they are under papal authority and that they await his ruling.

I think we all understand the reasons for requesting “clarification”

 

[JPUSC]

Still, he is my favorite saint. In fact, my Christmas present this year was a gorgeous picture of him for the mantle.

I had the nicest picture of Pope Benedict XVI on the mantle with a nice golden frame I custom made myself. It’s been put away in the closet now.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My understanding is that I lack understanding. I guess I lean toward the law of gradualness. A great deal that Ginny said I actually agree with, but I perhaps prefer a greater, merciful time-table. Let us take the worse case scenario.

A person in a totally valid marriage, marginal Catholic married to marginal Catholic, becomes a classic prodigal son, running off with his mistress. Ten years later, a serious emotional events brings that person back to the Church, now married to this mistress with a couple of kids that need to be raised. His annulment is either denied, or he does not apply as it is obvious it should be denied. Through the counseling time, the priest understands the man earnestly desires communion with Christ (even more than receiving communion). He really wants the Sacrament of Reconcilliation for his adultery. Yet he just can’t wrap his head around the Church’s teaching that he is still committing adultery, as he still is intimately in love with his wife and family.

Yes, I think such a person should strive to live as brother and sister. However, I am still on the fence as to whether the law of gradualness might permit the desire to make this commitment because of a desire to put Christ above all, including family might allow the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and admittance to communion. I do believe some things are close enough to be humanly impossible to consider them so, Trent not withstanding, as that council had the caveat, “even for one that is justified and constituted in grace.” It mirrors the words of St. Paul, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

I might be splitting hairs, which is why I hesitate to have an opinion. In any case, I do believe in this case continence needs to be where the goal, as that which God requires, as it is a clear case of continuing adultery. I equally being that the grace of God is necessary for such a life, and may be necessary even to reach the point of resolving to live such a life.

So clearly, if I believe that, I think most in similar situations, who simply do not put a priority on spiritual growth, should still not receive. As I said, I can see the Malta resolution being taken more broadly that is right.

I am probably more conservative on this one…all things being equal I wouldn’t see him as eligible for Communion. The main reason being he knows interiorly he hasn’t a show of getting an annulment…which suggests he believes the first marriage was true. Yet you say he believes the present one is true. So I am not sure how this contradiction can be possible in a real world situation!

Perhaps you mean he believes the first marriage was never true (due to immaturity?) but is also realistic a tribunal will never discover this. If so that needs to be explored with the priest and depending where that goes then …

Then there is Cardinal Ratzingers 1990s suggestion that nominal faith only marriages may not be sacramental which means they can be dissolved. I believe Pope Francis somewhere reiterated that sentiment.

For myself if I really believed my original marriage was true and I irreparably failed and now have “grown up” and am in a good “marriage” (ie it shouldn’t be abandoned)…I would be quite happy to attempt abstinence. However I would desist if it ended up being too much of a strain on the relationship…afterall my 2nd partner was sincere in entering a true marriage where I did give her rights over my body and she accepted that.

In which case I would be content with not receiving Communion as I would see that as following God’s will in an imperfect world.
In any case one can always privately abstain without one’s partner being aware, anonymously take Communion, gladly pay the debt when required, go to Confession and back to Communion again. For me it would not be a big deal, which is easy to say at my age .