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

[billy15]

So you are saying that AL didn’t change anything, is that right? How do you square that with the Pope’s statement that it did make changes, and with the way it is being implemented (with the Pope’s approval)?

Yes. I think Tantum Ergo had a good post at #882, and I’ll quote her in saying, “Dear Lord, if what is happening now is truly Your will and is truly a sign of grace, let it be made manifest. If it is not, let that be made manifest as well. For it is THY will we wish to be done.”

I wish to follow Jesus and remain in His truth, and therefore I will accept whatever the Church commands. Stat Crux made a good point that I was thinking myself, but he has articulated it better than I could: "nothing has been stated to explain why the reasons given in FC84 for rejecting Communion for those remarried Catholics who were sexually active have been resolved or removed. It isn’t sufficient to simply state “it can no longer be said that…”; why can it no longer be said? If these reasons are the foundation of Church teaching, then why are they suddenly cast aside so arbitrarily without consideration or concern to explain why?

We seem to have a gamut of interpretations right now. Archbishops Chaput and Sample, Bishops Olmsted and Lopes, among others on one side, the Argentine bishops somewhere in the middle, and then Bishop Elbs, the Maltese bishops, among others on the opposite side of the gamut. As canon lawyer Ed Peters commented,

Unlike, say, the Argentine document on Amoris which, one could argue, left just enough room for an orthodox reading, however widely it also left the doors open for abuse by others, the Maltese bishops in their document come straight out and say it: holy Communion is for any Catholic who feels “at peace with God” and the Church’s ministers may not say No to such requests.

Another priest also made a good point about the Argentine bishops’ draft:

As a matter of fact, if we want to be fair to what has been written (rather clumsily and unclearly), were someone, some couple, to read and take seriously – with the help of a good, faithful priest – what Amoris said, and what the Argentinian [draft] said, not many people would be able to discern that they can honestly receive Communion.

The thing is, some are treating the private letter of the Holy Father that leaked to be an act of the Magisterium. It’s not, and if it supposedly is, someone please explain. It’d be like saying Pope Francis’ remarks on planes are to be taken as an act of the Magisterium. The *dubia *, however, have officially asked for clarification which would officially resolve the issue of contradictory applications, which I understand you don’t see as much of a problem. But if Archbishops Sample’s and Chaput’s guidelines are wrong, I would like to understand why. I would like to see a point by point rebuttal of their statements, especially Archbishop Sample’s, as to why they have misinterpreted AL.

As of now, I’m just praying for unity in the Church, as well as for our bishops and leaders.

 

[edwayne]

Its a prudential decision about lived sexuality that thank God some celibate priests do understand. Personally I think it is rash if not psychologically very dangerous forcing some legitimately cohabiting couples (for the sake of the kids) to stay together and yet abstain. Cruel and unusual punishment in my book. It may well be better to counsel they separate than require them to cohabit yet abstain. I think St Paul had a lot to say about human weakness and impossibilities for some in the area of sexual restraint.

Shame on Pope John Paul II for ever promulgating such a cruel teaching.

 

[edwayne]

By all means recraft my sentence in words that do not cause offence yet retain the same observation that confusion can be caused by lack of specialist education or understanding or comparable intelligence to understand anothers alleged “contradictions”.
I am always willing to learn more politer ways of communicating my logical observations.

However it is my experience on CAF that there are some neutrally motived observations that are never acceptable to some of the more vocal personalities here because they do not accept the possibility .

I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that you had the ability to craft your own words so as to be cordial.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why would YOU think a priest is better? One person as opposed to several? Do we let juries consist of ONE person?

TE you are the one who is “confused”, sees logical contradictions between past and present statements and I am the one who asked you that question .

Well you really are somewhat confused here.
(a) Would you mind quoting the sentence in AL that has led you to this unusual conclusion?
(b) I think you will fill find that the judging of provision of “Communion” provision still involves the priest … somehow you have mixed up judgement of other things (“their actions”, whatever that means) with the priest’s role.
(c) If by “their actions” you mean the status of one’s first marriage … yes the laity have always been able to do that and there are legal and moral consequences/obligations for any person who decides their first marriage is not true - just as Cardinal Ratzinger advised back in the 1990s or so. Why have you a problem with this?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Garbage? My, how reasoned.

I provided my reasons TE, unlike your thin response to TMC that absence of explicit affirmation somehow amounts to denial .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that you had the ability to craft your own words so as to be cordial.

So if you now judge I do not have that ability (which you do not seem to possess either as you haven’t risen to my challenge) does that not explain how my motives were in fact neutral as I have stated all along.

Maybe such handicapped people as ourselves can appear condescending while not actually being condescenders…just as moral theologians say some messed up irregulars can appear to commit adultery while not actually being adulterers.

Just say’in.

 

[Ginny89]

People are already questioning the church’s teaching on the public relevation given once for all time, the innerrancy of scripture and the authority of the Apostles, and yet some still wonder why we think this is such a big problem to the faith itself even beyond the issue of remarriage and communion. If things like the Apostle’s authority, the inerrancy of scripture and the sacred deposit of faith are up for grabs, why should I even believe in the creed or Christianity at all? Lord have mercy.

 

[TMC]

You state they were not “explicitly condemned”, but in fact any practice which admits those engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage to Communion was condemned, regardless of whether it was the Argentinian or the Maltese proposal. Just considering Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84 for example:

Their state and condition remains an objective contradiction. “Objective” means true, now and always. It doesn’t get subsequently explained away, otherwise it’s not objective but subjective.

I know that AL reiterates the indissolubility of the original Marriage, even if the “liberal” interpretations then proceed to ignore this and proceed as though it no longer exists. However, FC here identifies no difference between practices which deny or affirm the indissolubility of Marriage. Instead the condemnation is equally applicable for any practice in which “people were admitted to the Eucharist”. Are the faithful now no longer going to be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage? What has changed to explain away this very serious reason? Are we now somehow better Catechised than Catholics in 1981?

Again, this is simply reiterating the requirements for a valid Confession. Why is repentance no longer necessary? This isn’t simply a matter of Church law and practice, but the fundamental understanding of the Sacraments. What has changed since 1981 in that we no longer need to repent or have a firm purpose of amendment in order to receive absolution?

In all of the above cases, nothing has been stated to explain why the reasons given in FC84 for rejecting Communion for those remarried Catholics who were sexually active have been resolved or removed. It isn’t sufficient to simply state “it can no longer be said that…”; why can it no longer be said? If these reasons are the foundation of Church teaching, then why are they suddenly cast aside so arbitrarily without consideration or concern to explain why?

They didn’t “reach out” to the Pope, he obtained a draft working document and wrote a letter to the Bishops about it. When people actually write to him directly asking for guidance, using Dubia for example, he refuses to respond.

Can you try to discuss this issue without expressing contempt or derision for the Church and the Pope? The Pope did not cast aside past teachings or the foundation of the Church. How could anyone read AL and draw that conclusion? The Pope is not throwing away repentance, or leading the Church into error and confusion. Nor is the Pope refusing to teach and lead - although some are refusing to learn or follow.

 

[jeannetherese]

(f) And why does the Church still allow some to remain married and cohabit provided they abstain. Jesus said the very act of marrying is adulterous sex or no sex doesn’t he?

Hi Blue,
I’m catching up on the thread and was curious about the question you raised here.
Do you think that a possible reason in this case might be that the Church did not recognize the validity of the second marriage and thus, once sexual congress ceases, non-sexual roof sharing isn’t considered a problem?
Thanks for your insights.
jt

 

[Thomas_White]

The Catechism states very clearly that upon the death of the Apostle John there was no more public revelation, only private. I wonder why those who take the leaked letter to the Argentinians as definitive about there being “no other interpretation” seem so “flexible” with the rest of the magisterium.

“…is it that a fuller understanding can develop? So it is for each generation through the ages, Ratzinger maintained, as revelation* continues until the end of time.”

*revelation: with a small “r”, its meaning in the sentence “a fuller understanding”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Shame on Pope John Paul II for ever promulgating such a cruel teaching.

One can “torture” others without being a torturer…just as one might commit what is called adultery without being an adulterer .

 

[Thomas_White]

The Catechism states very clearly that upon the death of the Apostle John there was no more public revelation, only private. I wonder why those who take the leaked letter to the Argentinians as definitive about there being “no other interpretation” seem so “flexible” with the rest of the magisterium.

“…is it that a fuller understanding can develop? So it is for each generation through the ages, Ratzinger maintained, as revelation* continues until the end of time.”

*revelation: with a small “r”, its meaning in the sentence “a fuller understanding”

An understanding of Ratzinger’s theory of Revelation requires a certain level of “intellectual octane”, an interesting phrase used elsewhere in the thread. In a special sense, revelation continues throughout history as succeeding generations are progressively more prepared to receive a fuller understanding of it. What Ratzinger means is that the body of Revelation is literally revealed anew to each generation, progressively (and actually continuously) so as it develops during the course of history–and with a bit more “revealed” to each generation (i.e., understandable to it). Revelation is thus not static.

While Revelation was revealed in its fullness, it is its understanding that develops until the end of time. And this of course means we do not yet know all there is to know and, according to Ratzinger, neither does the Church. As for intellectual octane: it would seem likely that not every person of each generation is prepared to receive the fuller understanding of Revelation that is revealed to it. If the special way the word “revelation” is used is confusing…see above.

Private revelation is beside the point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hi Blue,
I’m catching up on the thread and was curious about the question you raised here.
Do you think that a possible reason in this case might be that the Church did not recognize the validity of the second marriage and thus, once sexual congress ceases, non-sexual roof sharing isn’t considered a problem?
Thanks for your insights.

I am a student in these things like everybody else JT.

But re what I can understand from your query…platonic cohabitation is still a serious disordered situation for the Church…as is a platonic 2nd civil marriage.
These acts also objectively contradict Jesus’s teaching on marriage as JPII stated.
So I would personally still call these situations “light adultery” (ie a form of unfaithfulness even if platonic).

However in some cases the Church would judge that the physical evils of staying in the stable 2nd marriage (given the 1st is irreconcilable) are outweighed by the goods retained in doing so (mostly the good of the kids).

So it is still a problem but the Church does see applicability of arguments of proportionality operating here. This is typical of use of the principle of double effect which basically means the evils (cohabitation with a woman other than your true wife) are tolerated but not directly willed. What is willed is the good of the children.

What has been indirectly raised in AL, and explicitly in the Argent Draft, is whether some of those in this already exceptional situation may be admitted a further exemption…permitted sexual activity and still be able to receive Communion.

Can the PODEffect hold for the much graver physical evil of sexual activity in a 2nd marriage with one who is presumably not your wife? That is, if “light adultery” can be tolerated can “grave adultery” be tolerated?

Personally I would say no if I truly believe the first marriage was valid. If I always believed that my first marriage was invalid and I have attempted to have that discovered at a Tribunal without success yet, and my innocent partner is not really capable of a continence they never intended in marrying me, then I would say that a likewise objectively convinced accompanying PP might allow this if the usual other boxes were well ticked.

 

[Ginny89]

“…is it that a fuller understanding can develop? So it is for each generation through the ages, Ratzinger maintained, as revelation* continues until the end of time.”

*revelation: with a small “r”, its meaning in the sentence “a fuller understanding”

An understanding of Ratzinger’s theory of Revelation requires a certain level of “intellectual octane”, an interesting phrase used elsewhere in the thread. In a special sense, revelation continues throughout history as succeeding generations are progressively more prepared to receive a fuller understanding of it. What Ratzinger means is that the body of Revelation is literally revealed anew to each generation, progressively (and actually continuously) so as it develops during the course of history–and with a bit more “revealed” to each generation (i.e., understandable to it). Revelation is thus not static.

While Revelation was revealed in its fullness, it is its understanding that develops until the end of time. And this of course means we do not yet know all there is to know and, according to Ratzinger, neither does the Church. As for intellectual octane: it would seem likely that not every person of each generation is prepared to receive the fuller understanding of Revelation that is revealed to it. If the special way the word “revelation” is used is confusing…see above.

Private revelation is beside the point.

We all know that we develop better understanding of the one revelation that was closed when St. John died nearly 2000 years ago. Yes, even those of us without the “intellectual octane” you possess

That’s why the church has taught the precise manner in which our understanding grows that while doctrine may develop, it can never contradict that which is already taught.

I am sure Pope Benedict would never teach that the revelation was not closed after St. John’s death so that we can now be told in 2017 that that which St. John, the Council of Trent, St. JP II and Pope Benedict himself taught were adamantly impossible is now magically possible, despite whatever “explanations” of what he “means” you provide. Popes are not prophets or Apostles, apart from the first one of their line. They guard and transmit the same deposit, they reveal nothing new. They are not inspired. The apostles were. Even those of us with inferior intelligence can spot that distinction.

 

[JPUSC]

Blue Horizon:

By the way I thought you had a life and were too busy to respond to challenging questions here such as the below I put to you.

We did get it that you had no credible response to offer.
As they say, “if you cannot take the heat maybe its better not to try and cook in the kitchen”.

Yeah, I do have a life and I just came home from a night of partying.

Please. You think I’m actually going to answer your essay questions…ain’t nobody got time for that.

 

[Thomas_White]

We all know that we develop better understanding of the one revelation that was closed when St. John died nearly 2000 years ago. Yes, even those of us without the “intellectual octane” you possess

That’s why the church has taught the precise manner in which our understanding grows that while doctrine may develop, it can never contradict that which is already taught.

I am sure Pope Benedict would never teach that the revelation was not closed after St. John’s death so that we can now be told in 2017 that that which St. John, the Council of Trent, St. JP II and Pope Benedict himself taught were adamantly impossible is now magically possible, despite whatever “explanations” of what he “means” you provide. Popes are not prophets or Apostles, apart from the first one of their line. They guard and transmit the same deposit, they reveal nothing new. They are not inspired. The apostles were. Even those of us with inferior intelligence can spot that distinction.

Well, as the future Pope Benedict XVI said of the central message of Dei Verbum:

“Revelation now appeared no longer simply as a communication of truths to the intellect, but as a historical action of God, in which truth becomes finally unveiled.”

Make of it what you will, but “inferior intelligence” is a qualitative term and a value judgment I would not use. I would rather say that not every person of each generation is prepared to receive what is unveiled to it.

 

[JimG]

“…is it that a fuller understanding can develop? So it is for each generation through the ages, Ratzinger maintained, as revelation* continues until the end of time.”

*revelation: with a small “r”, its meaning in the sentence “a fuller understanding”

An understanding of Ratzinger’s theory of Revelation requires a certain level of “intellectual octane”, an interesting phrase used elsewhere in the thread. In a special sense, revelation continues throughout history as succeeding generations are progressively more prepared to receive a fuller understanding of it. What Ratzinger means is that the body of Revelation is literally revealed anew to each generation, progressively (and actually continuously) so as it develops during the course of history–and with a bit more “revealed” to each generation (i.e., understandable to it). Revelation is thus not static.

While Revelation was revealed in its fullness, it is its understanding that develops until the end of time. And this of course means we do not yet know all there is to know and, according to Ratzinger, neither does the Church. As for intellectual octane: it would seem likely that not every person of each generation is prepared to receive the fuller understanding of Revelation that is revealed to it. If the special way the word “revelation” is used is confusing…see above.

Private revelation is beside the point.

After reading through the HPR article, it seems to me that one of Cardinal Ratzinger’s main points is that Revelation requires a recipient, and that each generation, in that sense, receives Revelation anew. A development in understanding is not a new revelation. Even in heaven our understanding will continue to develop, for human understanding can never fully encompass the divine. But I do not get the sense that he is advocating for a kind of ‘continuing revelation.’ Greater understanding does not change the content of the deposit of faith.

 

[Vico]

Well, as the future Pope Benedict XVI said of the central message of Dei Verbum:

“Revelation now appeared no longer simply as a communication of truths to the intellect, but as a historical action of God, in which truth becomes finally unveiled.”

Make of it what you will, but “inferior intelligence” is a qualitative term and a value judgment I would not use. I would rather say that not every person of each generation is prepared to receive what is unveiled to it.

I particularly like No. 8 in Dei Verbum:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through * the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) * through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and * through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.
For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

 

[Ginny89]

After reading through the HPR article, it seems to me that one of Cardinal Ratzinger’s main points is that Revelation requires a recipient, and that each generation, in that sense, receives Revelation anew. A development in understanding is not a new revelation. Even in heaven our understanding will continue to develop, for human understanding can never fully encompass the divine. But I do not get the sense that he is advocating for a kind of ‘continuing revelation.’ Greater understanding does not change the content of the deposit of faith.

Thank you. I indeed would be beyond shocked to learn that Pope Benedict has taught that public revelation was not given once and for all and closes with the passing of the last apostle. That our understanding grows has not been disputed by a single person that I see. It is that it can repudiate what has been taught that is disputed for that is not possible unless one speaks of a genuinely new revelation a bit like how Christ’s revelation replaced parts of the old. Thats just not possible with the new revelation which is until the end of time.

 

[Ender]

But the issue is that the Church is saying, through the Pope and the bishops, that there are circumstances where the remarried may be admitted to the sacraments. The Holy Spirit is working through the Church to accomplish that development. And some are here claiming that the Pope lacks the authority to teach in that way, or at least is wrong in doing so.

There is a very significant point here that is not clearly expressed. Does the Holy Spirit work through the Church to accomplish development? Yes, of course. Does the pope have the authority to express that development? Certainly. What he does not have, however, is the authority to create doctrine. His job is preservation, not innovation.*“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” *(1st Vatican Council)
Reading the comments of some posters there seems to exist a belief that Catholicism is whatever a pope says it is, and that truth - or at least doctrine - can change from one pontiff to the next. If this was so then Catholicism would have no better claim to the truth than anything else, and leaving the Church would be understandable. It would make no sense to stay.

No one questions whether the pope has the authority to teach. The questions are whether AL represents new doctrine…and whether any pope has the authority to rewrite doctrines as he chooses.

And to defend their position they are claiming the be directly supported by the words of Christ, suggesting both that they understand Christ better than the Church, and that the Pope is ignoring Jesus’ express instructions.

I think this misses the point of the objections. Those being referred to are not claiming to have a better understanding of Christ than the Church does. The apparent disconnect is between the Church and AL. Again, the pope is not the Church. He is the temporary head of the Church, but his every word is not protected from error.

The argument is this: “The Church teaches A, B, and C based on certain passage of Scripture. Some interpretations of AL appear to contradict doctrines that have developed over 2000 years. How can those contradictions be resolved?”

To respond “No contradiction exists” or “Popes can teach what they like” doesn’t resolve the problem.

Ender