Cardinal Schönborn on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

Indeed, only he can make it clear. Thankfully, a private correspondence to the Argentinian bishops does not constitute an act of the Magisterium. We can only pray that he will answer the dubia

I’m not denying that portions of Chapter 8 are ambiguous. But I won’t call an orthodox reading of the document a “twisting of words” either. Those who read the document in a heterodox light are the ones doing the twisting. I stand by Archbishop Sample’s words, which apply here:

No analogy is perfect, Tim. But my point still stands. If someone in a state of sin has firm purpose of amendment not to sin, that is sufficient for absolution. Only God can judge if that person is telling the truth when they make their Act of Contrition in the confessional.

Yes, changing the situation is the proper recourse. It is obviously the preferred method of recourse. But St. John Paul made clear in FC that there are cases where this preferred method, this “obligation to separate”, cannot be satisfied. So when you ask how could one advise such a thing to a civilly remarried couple with children of their own, I think you’d have to ask St. John Paul. He was very clear that this is a case where receiving Communion is possible:

I don’t have numbers for you on how often this happens, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

I wonder why too, Tim. I agree with you; the situation is dangerous with these contradictory statements by bishops and bishops’ conferences. We can only pray that the division in the Church ceases, and laity and hierarchy both accept the true teaching of the Church.

If Pope Francis did in fact advise that the Arg bishops viewed AL correctly then that view clearly is the meaning of AL and to that extent is Magisterial. What does it matter whether Pope Francis aired this to the paperboy or by a Encyclical addendum. It makes no difference if it is proven he did so meaningfully. The actual reality is what he meant when he wrote the Encyclical. Now we know. To impose some quasi juridic or artificial technical requirement that this later revealing has to be “Magisterial” (what does that even mean here) is verging on the autistic…even if it be high functioning.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Sacrament of Reconciliation requires the affirmation not to sin and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Co-habitation seems to be a violation of that very important aspect of conversion.

But forgiveness doesnt, at least according to Jesus.

 

[janman55]

So the Act of Contrition does not require the avoidance of near occasion of sin as a condition of absolution from the priest?

 

[pnewton]

So the Act of Contrition does not require the avoidance of near occasion of sin as a condition of absolution from the priest?

The issue is what is required for absolution.
From the catechism:

*1450 “Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.”

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”*

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So the Act of Contrition does not require the avoidance of near occasion of sin as a condition of absolution from the priest?

Jesus forgave grave sin without such did he not?

 

[Tim_D]

It isnt objectively sinful.
It is objectively disordered. That doesnt alone mean grave sins are being committed.

Living with another who is sacramentally married and engaging in sexual relations with them isn’t objectively sinful?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Living with another who is sacramentally married and engaging in sexual relations with them isn’t objectively sinful?

How can something be purely objective and sinful at the same time?
Committing sin for most people is personal and therfore inherently subjective.
I believe you mean, more clearly, “objectively disordered” or “of grave matter” … which is not incompatible with the the presence of sanctifying grace…as Pope Francis states.

 

[M-Dent]

Living with another who is sacramentally married and engaging in sexual relations with them isn’t objectively sinful?

Yes, certain actions are objectively sinful by there nature. Degrees of culpability is what is subjective. Thus absolute judgements on such are left to God alone.

 

[Rau]

How can something be purely objective and sinful at the same time?
Committing sin for most people is personal and therfore inherently subjective.
I believe you mean, more clearly, “objectively disordered” or “of grave matter” … which is not incompatible with the the presence of sanctifying grace…as Pope Francis states.

The difficulty I think is that JP II arrived at a different answer in respect of communion for the remarried, and his error - or the gap in his reasoning or the scenario he addressed - has not been identified. Should we conclude he was right “then” and Francis is right “now”? I have no stake in the answer to the question of communion for the remarried in the limited cases that Francis addressed (though I note many here do) - only in consistency of rationale.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The difficulty I think is that JP II arrived at a different answer in respect of communion for the remarried, and his error - or the gap in his reasoning or the scenario he addressed - has not been identified. Should we conclude he was right “then” and Francis is right “now”? I have no stake in the answer to the question of communion for the remarried in the limited cases that Francis addressed (though I note many here do) - only in consistency of rationale.

If we believe in the indefectibility of the Papacy then it is objectively impossible for the two to be at odds on matters of faith and morals.

We therefore have every reason to believe that if JPII were alive today (as is the last Pope) he would say exactly what the last Pope says - no inconsistencies .

Therefore, those lay people who do not have the theological education, pastoral experience or raw intellectual octane to understand the consistency should just do what Catholic humility has always asked them to do - leave the hard issues to the big boys and be at peace. If one personally believes God does not allow oneself the freedoms now open to others re Communion…then follow your conscience and in your own case act accordingly…but do not begrudge others who also in good conscience believe they may take advantage of these new freedoms.

No one has the authority to objectively state there is a real inconsistency other than the current Pope or a Council from what I can make out.

Or its an “inconsistency” born of a wise but essentially arbitrary discipline that has finally changed a little after 1800 years given the complete new reality of huge numbers of remarriages in the heart of the Church.

 

[Rau]

…Therefore, those lay people who do not have the theological education, pastoral experience or raw intellectual octane to understand the consistency should just do what Catholic humility has always asked them to do - leave the hard issues to the big boys and be at peace…

Why limit this trite thought to laity? On this one, the “low octane” of the laity appear in good company with various in the order of Bishops.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This thread has brought up a good, compact collection of the arguments in favour of sexually active remarried divorcees bering allowed to receive Communion without changing their lifestyle.

They’ve all been examined before but it’s worth looking at them again.

**1. Adultery isn’t necessarily subjectively sinful (at least not gravely)
**
“It isnt objectively sinful.
It is objectively disordered. That doesnt alone mean grave sins are being committed.”

Three things are required for grave sin: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent.

Grave matter: having sexual relations with someone not your spouse is always grave matter. This is definitive Catholic teaching.

Full knowledge: a Catholic who has contracted a previous Catholic marriage before a priest, with the concomitant marriage preparation, then left his/her spouse and moved in with a new partner must know that having sexual relations with the new partner is grave matter. It is impossible that he/she is in invincible ignorance.

***Full consent: ***only something that overrides the will can diminish consent to the extent that mortal sin is no longer mortal: force, drugging, fear of one’s life. A cohabiting couple who have regular sexual relations are not acting under this kind of duress. They are doing it of their own free will.

2. AL is part of the Magisterium and Pope Francis’ interpretation of the controversial Chapter 8 (revealed in his endorsement of the Argentinian bishops) definitively allows Communion for sexually active remarried divorcees.

“If Pope Francis did in fact advise that the Arg bishops viewed AL correctly then that view clearly is the meaning of AL and to that extent is Magisterial.”

The Magisterium cannot contradict itself. On the subject of remarried divorcees it has always been crystal clear: living in a sexually active cohabitation as described in 1. is gravely sinful. Someone in grave sin cannot be given Communion. Period. Conclusion: either AL is not part of the definitive Magisterium or its text is sufficiently ambiguous to suffer a Catholic interpretation. In Magisterial documents it is the text itself that matters, not the opinion the Pope might privately express about it.

3. Repentance does not require a firm purpose of amendment.

"The Sacrament of Reconciliation requires the affirmation not to sin and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Co-habitation seems to be a violation of that very important aspect of conversion.

But forgiveness doesn’t, at least according to Jesus."

According to Jesus, forgiveness does require the affirmation not to sin and to avoid the near occasion of sin. “Go and sin no more.” This is also the constant teaching of the Church. Someone who in the act of repentance does not reject sin, i.e. does not resolve not to sin again, is not in fact repenting. A cohabiting couple who intend to do nothing to stop their sexual activity are not repenting. They may feel remorse but remorse is not repentance. Souls in hell feel remorse.

4. One can live in an objectively sinful situation and not sin.

“Yes, certain actions are objectively sinful by there nature. Degrees of culpability is what is subjective.”

See 1.

5. The hierarchy allows Communion for sexually active remarried divorcees so Catholics may avail themselves of this permission in good conscience.

“leave the hard issues to the big boys and be at peace. If one personally believes God does not allow oneself the freedoms now open to others re Communion…then follow your conscience and in your own case act accordingly…but do not begrudge others who also in good conscience believe they may take advantage of these new freedoms.”

As individual churchmen, the hierarchy does not speak ex cathedra - only the Pope in certain circumstances and an ecumenical council also in certain circumstances can do that - and churchmen cannot change the definitive Magisterial teaching of the Church. On this issue the hierarchy is divided, hence Catholics must default to the Magisterium itself.

**6. The Church’s teaching on giving Communion to those in grave sin is only a discipline, amenable to change. **

“Or its an “inconsistency” born of a wise but essentially arbitrary discipline that has finally changed a little after 1800 years given the complete new reality of huge numbers of remarriages in the heart of the Church.”

It is dogma that those who commit grave sin lose sanctifying grace, and that those who have sinned gravely and lost sanctifying grace may not be given Communion. To affirm otherwise means to start a new religion. Numbers and current moral fashions do not make truth.

 

[M-Dent]

"Yes, certain actions are objectively sinful by there nature. Degrees of culpability is what is subjective."

That does not indicate one is NOT sinning - it is recognizing Full knowledge and Full consent is not something that can be objectively judged remotely. We are not soul readers.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This thread has brought up a good, compact collection of the arguments in favour of sexually active remarried divorcees bering allowed to receive Communion without changing their lifestyle.

They’ve all been examined before but it’s worth looking at them again.

**1. Adultery isn’t necessarily subjectively sinful (at least not gravely)
**
“It isnt objectively sinful.
It is objectively disordered. That doesnt alone mean grave sins are being committed.”

Three things are required for grave sin: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent.

Grave matter: having sexual relations with someone not your spouse is always grave matter. This is definitive Catholic teaching.

Full knowledge: a Catholic who has contracted a previous Catholic marriage before a priest, with the concomitant marriage preparation, then left his/her spouse and moved in with a new partner must know that having sexual relations with the new partner is grave matter. It is impossible that he/she is in invincible ignorance.

***Full consent: ***only something that overrides the will can diminish consent to the extent that mortal sin is no longer mortal: force, drugging, fear of one’s life. A cohabiting couple who have regular sexual relations are not acting under this kind of duress. They are doing it of their own free will.

2. AL is part of the Magisterium and Pope Francis’ interpretation of the controversial Chapter 8 (revealed in his endorsement of the Argentinian bishops) definitively allows Communion for sexually active remarried divorcees.

“If Pope Francis did in fact advise that the Arg bishops viewed AL correctly then that view clearly is the meaning of AL and to that extent is Magisterial.”

The Magisterium cannot contradict itself. On the subject of remarried divorcees it has always been crystal clear: living in a sexually active cohabitation as described in 1. is gravely sinful. Someone in grave sin cannot be given Communion. Period. Conclusion: either AL is not part of the definitive Magisterium or its text is sufficiently ambiguous to suffer a Catholic interpretation. In Magisterial documents it is the text itself that matters, not the opinion the Pope might privately express about it.

3. Repentance does not require a firm purpose of amendment.

"The Sacrament of Reconciliation requires the affirmation not to sin and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Co-habitation seems to be a violation of that very important aspect of conversion.

But forgiveness doesn’t, at least according to Jesus."

According to Jesus, forgiveness does require the affirmation not to sin and to avoid the near occasion of sin. “Go and sin no more.” This is also the constant teaching of the Church. Someone who in the act of repentance does not reject sin, i.e. does not resolve not to sin again, is not in fact repenting. A cohabiting couple who intend to do nothing to stop their sexual activity are not repenting. They may feel remorse but remorse is not repentance. Souls in hell feel remorse.

4. One can live in an objectively sinful situation and not sin.

“Yes, certain actions are objectively sinful by there nature. Degrees of culpability is what is subjective.”

See 1.

5. The hierarchy allows Communion for sexually active remarried divorcees so Catholics may avail themselves of this permission in good conscience.

“leave the hard issues to the big boys and be at peace. If one personally believes God does not allow oneself the freedoms now open to others re Communion…then follow your conscience and in your own case act accordingly…but do not begrudge others who also in good conscience believe they may take advantage of these new freedoms.”

As individual churchmen, the hierarchy does not speak ex cathedra - only the Pope in certain circumstances and an ecumenical council also in certain circumstances can do that - and churchmen cannot change the definitive Magisterial teaching of the Church. On this issue the hierarchy is divided, hence Catholics must default to the Magisterium itself.

**6. The Church’s teaching on giving Communion to those in grave sin is only a discipline, amenable to change. **

“Or its an “inconsistency” born of a wise but essentially arbitrary discipline that has finally changed a little after 1800 years given the complete new reality of huge numbers of remarriages in the heart of the Church.”

It is dogma that those who commit grave sin lose sanctifying grace, and that those who have sinned gravely and lost sanctifying grace may not be given Communion. To affirm otherwise means to start a new religion. Numbers and current moral fashions do not make truth.

Lets not overthink the issue.
Nobody said a lifestyle change was unnecessary.
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=24130&stc=1&d=1500668055
m.youtube.com/watch?v=W0fURJg-K0A
God sees the change even if we dont immediately.

 

[billy15]

If Pope Francis did in fact advise that the Arg bishops viewed AL correctly then that view clearly is the meaning of AL and to that extent is Magisterial. What does it matter whether Pope Francis aired this to the paperboy or by a Encyclical addendum. It makes no difference if it is proven he did so meaningfully. The actual reality is what he meant when he wrote the Encyclical. Now we know. To impose some quasi juridic or artificial technical requirement that this later revealing has to be “Magisterial” (what does that even mean here) is verging on the autistic…even if it be high functioning.

I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but Blue, you have an incredible and unparalleled knack for being extremely insulting towards your fellow man, while deftly maintaining an air of erudition and eloquent pompousness. This is a new low; comparing the opinions of those you disagree with to someone who has high functioning autism. You should be ashamed of yourself.

To impose some quasi juridic or artificial technical requirement that this later revealing has to be “Magisterial” (what does that even mean here)

I don’t know, you tell me. You’re the one who brought up the term “magisterial”. Of course it matters whether or not Pope Francis aired his interpretation of AL to the paperboy or in an addendum to an encyclical! If it doesn’t, then it’s clear that the comments made by His Holiness on plane rides home constitute acts of the Magisterium. But they don’t.

If your assertion about “the paperboy” is true, then the comments Pope John XXII aired during his sermons regarding the Beatific Vision were true acts and pronouncements of the Magisterium too, and therefore correct. Of course, his comments weren’t an act of the Magisterium, as many theologians at the time pointed out that these comments were the Pope’s personal opinion. Following a commission to explore the issue further, Pope John XXII retracted his former position in 1334 on the Beatific Vision; an opinion that was heterodox.

But I guess don’t have “the theological education, pastoral experience or raw intellectual octane” to say all that, and should defer to “the big boys”, presumably including yourself.

Of course, I don’t believe the above sentence for a second. There are plenty of people that fit your three “criteria” that fundamentally disagree with your position regarding the reception of Holy Communion for those that have civilly divorced and civilly remarried. Can we suppose that Fr. Raymond J. de Souza or Dr. Jessica M. Murdoch of Villanova University has the “intellectual octane” to be correct on this matter, especially when the latter says this:

One does not need a Ph.D. in theology to discern areas in Amoris Laetitia that are ambiguous and that have already led to multiple interpretations.

Surely, she has the theological education (with her area of expertise in Fundamental and Dogmatic Theology, Thomism, Metaphysics and Epistemology) to say the following. Whether you agree with her or not is the question, and the substance of her point should be the only determining factor:

[W]hat is to be made of [the] assertion that Amoris Laetitia is a binding document of magisterial authority?.. First, the document lacks language of formal definition. A clear example of language of formal definition appears in Ordinatio Sacradotalis, wherein Pope John Paul II uses words such as “We teach and declare” to define the Church’s teaching on the priesthood. Contrast this with the language of AL highlighted by Cardinal Schönborn: “I urgently ask”; “It is no longer possible to say”; and “I have wanted to present to the entire Church.” Second, AL lacks the theological and juridical precision of binding ecclesial documents, instead relying upon metaphors, imagery, and thick description, rather than clear statements. And third, if, in fact, the document does contradict either natural or divine positive law, then it simply cannot bind the faithful to the obsequium religiosum, that is, the assent of mind and will, specified by Church Lumen Gentium 25.

This goes in line with what other prelates of the Church have said regarding AL. If this is true for the document itself, how could one possibly believe that the private letter to the Argentine bishops could possibly bind Catholics?

Dr. Jeff Mirus, who at least possesses the criteria of theological education, if not “raw intellectual octane”, clarifies what “magisterial” means:

Pope Francis, writing privately, is not a definitive interpreter of how the Church is to understand his Magisterial statements…

The important point today is that no pope is protected from error when, in private correspondence, he explains the proper interpretation of any Magisterial document, including those he has issued himself. Quite apart from the fact that disciplinary measures do not enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit (which means that even popes can implement unfortunate pastoral policies), no light is shed on Magisterial teachings by the private remarks of a pope about what he meant to say at the time…

When it comes to assessing a Magisterial teaching, the Church is guided by the actual text only—in conjunction with Scripture and all other relevant Magisterial statements—and not by a pope’s personal statement about what he “meant”. Such private utterances are unprotected by the Holy Spirit; therefore, they are totally irrelevant.

 

[billy15]

Dr. Ed Peters, who also meets some (if not all) of the arbitrary criteria presented to understand and critique the consistency of AL with prior Church teaching, clarifies further when mentioning the letter to the Argentine bishops in his comments on the Maltese Directive:

Unlike, say, **the Argentine document on AL 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.

Are all of these people imposing some “quasi juridic requirement”, making them the intellectual equivalent of a man who suffers from some form of high functioning autism? I think not.
Justin Swanton:

This thread has brought up a good, compact collection of the arguments in favour of sexually active remarried divorcees being allowed to receive Communion without changing their lifestyle.

They’ve all been examined before but it’s worth looking at them again…

Great post and summary, Justin, and I don’t believe you’re overthinking things at all. It was definitely worth looking at again. You have a good level of that raw, intellectual octane many on this forum, apparently, so desperately need.

The discipline of the Church regarding the reception of Holy Communion is not arbitrary, as was posted earlier:
Blue Horizon:

Or it’s an “inconsistency” born of a wise but essentially arbitrary discipline that has finally changed a little after 1800 years given the complete new reality of huge numbers of remarriages in the heart of the Church.

That you think this ancient discipline of the Church, reiterated coherently and forcefully, not even 35 years ago, by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, is “essentially arbitrary” says it all. This discipline is anything but arbitrary, as it corresponds to sacramental practice, the very Body and Blood of our Lord. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the following regarding Church discipline, as Dr. Peters agrees with David Mills who points out:

Disciplinary rules must necessarily have a direct (if sometimes distant) relation to doctrine, because they describe practically how to live the life the doctrine requires. The Church does not impose arbitrary rules. We have particular practices because we believe certain things to be true about the cosmos, things that must be lived out. Otherwise it doesn’t matter what people do.

In this case of the civilly divorced and remarried, the disciplinary rule isn’t distantly related to doctrine. It’s abundantly clear that the bond formed in a valid marriage is analogous to the relationship Christ has to His Bride; and as we all know, that bond is inseparable and permanent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but Blue, you have an incredible and unparalleled knack for being extremely insulting towards your fellow man, while deftly maintaining an air of erudition and eloquent pompousness. This is a new low; comparing the opinions of those you disagree with to someone who has high functioning autism. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I don’t know, you tell me. You’re the one who brought up the term “magisterial”. Of course it matters whether or not Pope Francis aired his interpretation of AL to the paperboy or in an addendum to an encyclical! If it doesn’t, then it’s clear that the comments made by His Holiness on plane rides home constitute acts of the Magisterium. But they don’t.

If your assertion about “the paperboy” is true, then the comments Pope John XXII aired during his sermons regarding the Beatific Vision were true acts and pronouncements of the Magisterium too, and therefore correct. Of course, his comments weren’t an act of the Magisterium, as many theologians at the time pointed out that these comments were the Pope’s personal opinion. Following a commission to explore the issue further, Pope John XXII retracted his former position in 1334 on the Beatific Vision; an opinion that was heterodox.

But I guess don’t have “the theological education, pastoral experience or raw intellectual octane” to say all that, and should defer to “the big boys”, presumably including yourself.

Of course, I don’t believe the above sentence for a second. There are plenty of people that fit your three “criteria” that fundamentally disagree with your position regarding the reception of Holy Communion for those that have civilly divorced and civilly remarried. Can we suppose that Fr. Raymond J. de Souza or Dr. Jessica M. Murdoch of Villanova University has the “intellectual octane” to be correct on this matter, especially when the latter says this:

Surely, she has the theological education (with her area of expertise in Fundamental and Dogmatic Theology, Thomism, Metaphysics and Epistemology) to say the following. Whether you agree with her or not is the question, and the substance of her point should be the only determining factor:

This goes in line with what other prelates of the Church have said regarding AL. If this is true for the document itself, how could one possibly believe that the private letter to the Argentine bishops could possibly bind Catholics?

Dr. Jeff Mirus, who at least possesses the criteria of theological education, if not “raw intellectual octane”, clarifies what “magisterial” means:

Was the child who told the Emperor he wore no clothes insulting or helping him.

But if you could advise in just 7 or 8 words where you were so seriously insulted I would be glad to apologise .

Never even implied I was one of the “big boys” - I am just happy to go with what Pope Francis advised us, whether formally or informally, what he meant in his Magisterial AL.
Its not rocket science to work out what he said he meant.
You - maybe not so much.

 

[pnewton]

The difficulty I think is that JP II arrived at a different answer in respect of communion for the remarried, and his error -.

The instruction given by St. John Paul referred to communion in this situation as a practice, not a doctrine. So his answer while different was not incompatible.

 

[Rau]

The instruction given by St. John Paul referred to communion in this situation as a practice, not a doctrine.

Like women wearing a veil was a practice, or communion on the tongue?

So really, quite minimal argument would be necessary to amend this practice, or to establish and maintain it over time? Is that what follows?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Like women wearing a veil was a practice, or communion on the tongue?

Essentially yes I would go along with that.
These disciplines were formulated as the prudential application of unchanging moral norms/precepts to the conditions of the time.
Conditions, which called for the original rules to be made so as to protect unchanging moral norms/precepts, slowly changed until such time that contrary practises were no longer seen to be at odds with the moral precepts which were being upheld.

So really, quite minimal argument would be necessary to amend this practice, or to establish and maintain it over time? Is that what follows?

I don’t see how that necessarily follows or why it is relevant. The Pope can validly change Canon Law over night if he wishes to. He didn’t though did he.

Can you see that your principles of “reason” for your above argument are based on the implicit conclusion you have already decided is correct?
Shouldn’t reasoning be the other way around…in which case it seems more reasonable to assume your principles have speed wobbles.

But what is clear is that conditions in the Church have changed remarkably since the 1960s where Catholic remarried turning up in Church (Communion or not) was unheard of and were treated as outcasts.

Now significant numbers of same are in the bosom of the Church and many bishops Cardinals and Popes have first hand family experience of such Catholics and realise grace still abounds for many of these despite appearances. Some have publicly “come out” emotionally on this very point.

This is a completely new experience for the Church, conditions are not what they were for the last 1930 years. So it has been ready for a sudden shift of the tectonic plates for at least the last 50 yrs. Its past time and it had to happen.
Sorry for the short warning Rau - the warning signs were always there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
It was for me - maybe you not so much, and less for the Pope gainsayers amongst us…