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

[TMC]

I have read AL. It does not say anywhere that remarried can receive communion without annulment or continence. Again, you KNOW this. This is why you “cannot point to” it. It’s not because you “have eyes to see and ears to hear”. It’s because all you have are innuendos and a private letter.

If denial is truly your approach, there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[Vico]

Well, the guidelines of the Bishops from Malta were published in L’Observatore Romano - the Vatican Newspaper. I guess this makes it the official interpretation of the Vatican.
Amoris Laetitia: L’Osservatore Romano publishes guidelines offered by Maltese bishops lastampa.it/2017/01/14/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/amoris-laetitia-losservatore-romano-publishes-guidelines-offered-by-maltese-bishops-NKDB1a4zGGAeM2m6o7AztK/pagina.html

Theologian to La Civiltà Cattolica: “Yes” to exceptions for divorce and remarriage

“Francis’s vision is that of a Church for all, because Christ really did die for all men, without exception, not just for some.” The “law of gradualness” does not mean “gradualness of the law” or relativism. It is possible to consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis, admitting remarried divorcees to the sacraments, without changes to the doctrine. This is according to Dominical theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues, Professor of Patristics and Dogmatics at the Institut Supérieur Thomas d’Aquin, at the Dominican House of Studies in Toulouse and at the Seminaire International St Cure’d Ars. He and his confrère, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, composed the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Fr. Garrigues discussed the issues of the Synod with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, Editor-in-Chief of La Civiltà Cattolica and the transcription of their conversation appears in the latest issue of the periodical. Although he does not refer to him directly, at one point the Dominican theologian pulls apart the theory put forward by US Jesuit Joseph Fessio, who wrote that contraception can be more serious that abortion.
lastampa.it/2015/05/28/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/theologian-to-la-civilt-cattolica-yes-to-exceptions-for-divorce-and-remarriage-LlGfEFFhS3gDkh53gU7izH/pagina.html

“Communion for remarried divorcees does not affect doctrine but discipline”
“The Sacred Tradition, as the Word says, is the oral and faithful transmission of the divine revelation and the apostolic preaching of the Word of God throughout history, is a living Magisterium, assisted by the Holy Spirit. Christ entrusted the apostles and their successors with the transmission of the faith, under Peter’s guidance, from generation to generation, right up until today, right up until Francis’ pontificate and until the end of the world…"
lastampa.it/2015/10/16/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/communion-for-remarried-divorcees-does-not-affect-doctrine-but-discipline-hTBt3I10pUIQB16OVZWS4L/pagina.html

As for me and my family we will follow the Vicar of Christ on earth, Pope Francis.

The guidelines are not from the Holy See, but from the bishops that wrote it and are not guidelines for everyone everywhere, but rather “we, the Bishops of Malta and Gozo, are offering these guidelines to the priests in our dioceses”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Did I not ask this question: “…does AL necessarily contradict past Magisterial teaching?”

I wish I knew what you meant by

It seems that a significant issue that AL addresses is “manifest grave sin”, a concept I can’t see holding up to reasoned analysis.

As you know, it is not certain that your long quote from the Summa was even written by Aquinas.

Are you for real ?

Nevertheless, it is understood that a given sin may be more or less grave.

But it is not always clear which of the very distinct definitions of “severity” Aquinas distinguished is referred to when the ambiguous phrase “grave sin” is rolled out. Depending on context it might even mean both.

The term “accident” is from Aristotle, and it refers to quality in the way red or blue is an “accidental” quality of a rubber ball. It is thus neither material nor formal cause. To wit:

I am indeed aware of the philosophic distinctions between form/matter, substance/accident, genus/species, essence/existence etc etc … so what?

Clearly the nature of the intent [consent/understanding] (ie existing fully or not) is not relevant to the definition of “sin” which is why that understanding of “severity” is called “accidental”.

Clearly the nature of the object matter of the “sin” in question is very relevant because if the matter is not disordered there can be no sin which is why the severity of the disorder in the matter is essential to a definition of sin and is called “substantial” as in “substance”.
Just as Aquinas (or rather his dictated secretary) wrote .

It is thus neither material nor formal cause.

I do not know why you feel the need to say this nor what the “it” refers to. “Severity of the sin” perhaps?

If so then clearly “severity” can either refer to the strength of intention font involved in the sin; OR the strength of the disorder present in the matter font.

The material object font does indeed seem to be related to the agent’s intention font as matter to form. That is why the external action willed is called “matter” and the willed intention is seen to “in-form” it.

Just as Aquinas says,
“Now that which is on the part of the will is formal in regard to that which is on the part of the external action: because the will uses the limbs to act as instruments.”

 

[edwayne]

Yes, of course I have. But the Church has not lost teaching authority, and has not stopped teaching, so I have also read the teachings that have been promulgated by the current Pope.

So when there a discrepancies as the examples provided in Post #784, how do you know who’s correct?

 

[Ginny89]

If denial is truly your approach, there is nothing I can do about that.

O the irony!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No one here advocates (b), else all bets are off.

(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 OR
(c) where one is correct and the other is wrong,

Why do you say no one advocates (b)…I just did, and other note similar sentiments by others in the past.

I’m not sure how (b) is even an option - ‘A’ is true and ‘not A’ is true cannot both be wrong unless ‘A’ does not even exist

Correct, (b) is indeed logical if the issue is not even in the discourse of right/wrong affirmations just as you suggest.
Must absolute right/wrong always be predicated of “don’t eat fish on Fridays”?
Must absolute right/wrong always be predicated of “active irregulars are not allowed to receive Communion.”

At some periods they may be allowed, at other periods not.
Currently the latter is allowed, before Pope Francis not.
They can both be the right decision for the times they were allowed.
They could even both be the wrong decisions for the times they were allowed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here are a few specifics that many of us are trying to get our heads around with regard to continuity:

But the teaching proposed now is that they are able regardless of their objective state.

But now the teaching is overturned… now they (the divorced and civilly remarried) can approach divine mercy through receiving holy communion.

But now the proposed teaching is that it is no longer binding and can be modified because of different situations.

But now the proposed teaching is that the objective situation of itself no longer renders impossible (i.e., it’s actually now possible) for the reception of holy communion by the divorced and civilly remarried.

I personally see no intrinsic oppositions above.
If the Popes implicitly agree that some who commit what is adultery are not actually adulterers then you have one possible solution to your logical impossibility.
The real issue is being an “adulterer” not engaging in “adultery”.

God isn’t really interested in colliding bodies…but rather the reasons and motives for same surely.
Of course you personally disagree, it is quite possible the Popes do not.
Someone may be short on octane, probably not Pope Francis.

 

[edwayne]

This issue is very simple to me.
Wise, educated and sincere Catholics see no necessary loss of continuity with tradition.
These same Catholics (which happen to include the current Pope) have no issue with Catholics of equal wisdom, education and sincerity holding the opposite opinion. Individuals, Cardinals Dioceses of Bishops Conferences can therefore choose whether or not to take advantage of the new pastoral possibilities offered.

This tolerance cannot be said to exist of many who hold the opposing view to Pope Francis. No, they want it all, they not only cannot see a continuity with tradition but on account of their absolute certainty they also appear to want to disallow annihilate all contrary views and practises to their position as heterodox…including a retraction of AL by the Pope, refusal of conferences/dioceses to implement the novelties allowed by the Guidelines and presumably, at an individual level, they will shun as unworthy or unclean any irregular adulterers who might be allowed to Communicate by any PP who might fully implement the ArgDraft proposals.

Am I mistaken in observing this somewhat unCatholic distinction between the two different camps re AL?

Yes, I believe you are mistaken. Adhering to Church teaching is not an opinion. I suppose one could say that we were all united in our rigid, unmerciful ‘opinion’ prior to April 2016 if we were faithfully adhering to the magisterium of the Church then. And not sure why anyone would accuse John Paul II of shunning as unworthy or unclean any irregular adulterers, which is what you are doing by implying those who still hold to FC84 and VS as magisterially binding.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is a requirement of reconciliation that one reject the sins he has committed and intend not to repeat them.

Such acts are primarily interior.
I see no reason why they are impossible to make even when one is also aware that the exterior follow-up is not only unlikely but currently outside the limit’s of one’s exterior freedom to do so and may be for some time.

The loss of exterior freedom may be either in the lower internal powers (the psychosexual freedom is rarely there ) or lack of external choice is also responsible (eg a man could be chaste if he left the relationship but not if he continues to cohabit…which is judged necessary for the good of the family).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s only subsequently that there have been several notable examples of divergent or contradictory interpretations published since he made those statements that the Dubia have been raised to clarify what the actual interpretation should be. So, although one might say that the wording of AL isn’t particularly precise in some areas, the debate is mostly about clarifying how we are meant to interpret it rather than the document itself.

How can anyone further labour under any illusion of the pastoral possibilities allowed in AL since the ArgDraft exactly?

Sure, the theology behind the new pastoral initiative is by no means clear but the bottom line is.

I am sure the Cardinals are smart enough to work out a possibly theological justification if they accepted the bottom line.

But it seems they simply do not accept the bottom line.
That is their mistake. The unwillingness to do so has stickied their wicket.

As my engineering boss always says to the new graduate employees:
“Never bring me a problem, bring me a solution.”
Some never learn this “truth” of team cooperation.

Its a matter of a cooperative attitude not objective right or wrong in these sorts of matters at that level.

 

[pnewton]

Okay I urge everybody to consult church history especially on Vatican II.

The dogmatic constitution De Verbum was a reaffirmation of a dogmatic proposition I.e. Something already defined as dogmatic. ]

Come on. You are saying that any one who does believe what you are saying just needs to learn more? I have been over this same ground for almost two decades. Radical traditionalist have been minimizing Vatican II as long as I have been Catholic. No, it is not ex cathedra, but that is only one type of infallibility. The other is the Church meeting in council, even if it is a pastoral council and they pronounce no new doctrine. Plus there is the rather obvious fact that at minimum, if the Church at Vatican II pronounced something no infallible, it was still the doctrine, and no one has any business arguing with Catholics into not believe that which the Church taught, infallible or not.

FYI, Having no new doctrine does not preclude infallible reformulations of old dogma, or solid doctrinal development of old dogma. Arguing the level of Church teaching is not relevant. Dei Verbum is still Church teaching at the highest level.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If Jesus Himself wasn’t the one who said it then we wouldn’t have any problem.

Said what?

 

[_Abyssinia]

How can anyone further labour under any illusion of the pastoral possibilities allowed in AL since the ArgDraft exactly?

Sure, the theology behind the new pastoral initiative is by no means clear but the bottom line is.

I am sure the Cardinals are smart enough to work out a possibly theological justification if they accepted the bottom line.

But it seems they simply do not accept the bottom line.
That is their mistake. The unwillingness to do so has stickied their wicket.

As my engineering boss always says to the new graduate employees:
“Never bring me a problem, bring me a solution.”
Some never learn this “truth” of team cooperation.

Its a matter of a cooperative attitude not objective right or wrong in these sorts of matters at that level.

It is not so cut and dry. There is a way to read Amoris Latetia as a text, that is in line with previous teaching, which is why Cardinal Muller has said what he has said.

 

[graciew]

internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2017/01/21/actualidad/1485022162_846725.html
+

Thank you,Abba. I read it and didn’t t want to pass by without giving thanks for this little treat in Spanish…
And something else: you live in a beautiful place if I do remember well. Enjoy it,praise God for the beauty that surrounds you. Peace.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Two examples of the sort of active irregulars the new initiatives in AL are aimed at.
Pretty much exactly what some of us have been discussing here:

Written by Dominical theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues, Professor of Patristics and Dogmatics at the Institut Supérieur Thomas d’Aquin, at the Dominican House of Studies in Toulouse. He and his confrère, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, composed the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

25/8/2015
Finally, the Dominican theologian gives two important examples, proposing an exception to the sacramental discipline that prevents remarried divorcees from accessing the sacraments. “I am thinking of a couple, in which one of the partners was previously married, a couple with children that lead a real and recognised Christian life. Let us imagine that the previously married person has turned to an ecclesiastical court regarding their previous marriage. This court has decided that it is impossible to annul the marriage on the grounds of insufficient proof, despite the fact that those involved are convinced of the opposite but have no way of proving it. On the basis of testaments to their good faith, Christian life and sincere bond with the Church and the sacrament of marriage, particularly if said testaments come from an expert spiritual father, then the diocesan bishop could readmit them to the sacraments of Penitence and the Eucharist without pronouncing a marriage annulment, showing discretion. He would therefore be granting an immediate dispensation to couples in these kinds of situations, based on the good faith the Church already reserves for divorcee couples who commit to living in continence.” It should be noted, that in the case of the latter situation, there is already an act of clemency in the application of the law, in a specific case: Garrigues explains that “while continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it does not get rid of the contradiction between conjugal breakup with consequent formation of new couple – that has forged emotional and cohabitational ties – and the Eucharist.”

The other type of situation proposed, is “undoubtedly of a more delicate nature”, the theologian points out. “In this case, following divorce and civil marriage, united divorcees experience a real conversion to Christian life, which their spiritual father, amongst others, can testify to. They still believe that their sacramental marriage really was sacramental and if they could they would try to repair their breakup because they are sincerely repentant: but they have children and also don’t have the strength to live in continence. What should be done in such cases? Should continence be demanded of them, a continence that would be rash without a special charisma from the Holy Spirit? These are questions that require reflection.”

“For the Church,” Garrigues concluded, “this would be an immediate exception to a traditional discipline based, of course, on the strong link between the Eucharist and marriage, on the grounds of a reasonable doubt with regard to the validity of the sacramental marriage forged or the impossibility of returning – for de facto reasons not to do with a person’s wishes – to the marital situation that existed prior to divorce. In both cases, this exception would be granted for the benefit of a solid Christian life.”

 

[pnewton]

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

• Galatians 1:8.

Just to be clear, the Gospel is not under discussion and no one is proclaiming a different Gospel.

 

[pnewton]

Idolatry of the Pope when it comes to Pope Francis (perceived, I am not saying it actually exists) would be a relatively new phenomenon. I certainly did not see such a rush of papal support from the majority of those who now support Pope Francis as ‘supreme’ (and as Vicar of Christ, he is certainly Supreme Pontiff), when Pope BENEDICT was Pope. Far from it.

Papal idolatry is a straw man any way. No one is worshiping the Pope, any more than people are blindly following Cardinal Burke. Pope Francis is the authority of the Church however, and that is not a titular position. It comes with great authority, which is why the College of Cardinals spent so much time in prayer seeking the will of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in choosing this man to lead the Church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, I believe you are mistaken. Adhering to Church teaching is not an opinion.

Do you think our own personal view of what may or may not actually be “Church Teaching” certainly is “opinion” … especially when a Pope seems to contradict it?

I suppose one could say that we were all united in our rigid, unmerciful ‘opinion’ prior to April 2016 if we were faithfully adhering to the magisterium of the Church then.

I believe you will find “Magisterium” does not refer to “a teaching” but rather a “teaching authority”.

You may adhere to “written teachings” that tend to get misunderstood with the passage of time…I prefer to adhere to the office and person of the living Magisterium which attempts to correct the misunderstandings that arise when past formulations for past situations are holus bolus and uncritically used as a lense for the present without re-examination.

And not sure why anyone would accuse John Paul II of shunning as unworthy or unclean any irregular adulterers, which is what you are doing by implying those who still hold to FC84 and VS as magisterially binding.

Oh please…it is only an implication for less than critical literalists who may not have the octane needed to see how two Popes across time can in fact be implicitly in accord.

Do you also believe Pope Francis is at odds with Pope Benedict on these matters?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not so cut and dry. There is a way to read Amoris Latetia as a text, that is in line with previous teaching, which is why Cardinal Muller has said what he has said.

There is only one way to read AL since the ArgDraft.

Where exactly does controversial ambiguity remain for you re the pastoral bottom lines?

 

[pnewton]

The doctrine is certain!

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 463.

The essential Properties of Marriage are unity (monogamy) an indissolubility. (Sent. certa.) CIC 1013, Par. 2.

Pope Francis reaffirmed this doctrine in Amoris Laetitia. It is not in question.