Cardinal Schonborn on 'Amoris Laetitia'

[Vico]

It IS misapplied because even if the ‘first’ marriage is deemed invalid, and that is a big ‘if’, the second union is still not a marriage, at least not until it is regularized (if the first marriage was invalid). But this is not addressed to those who are in valid marriages or those who have had their second union regularized. It is addressing those who have been divorced and civilly remarried.

Listen, I really want to believe what you are saying about the interpretation of AL, and if I squint hard enough, tilt my head a little, and read AL in a dimly lit room, I can possibly make some of these passages to be understood in an orthodox light. But not necessarily from the plain reading of the text. The lack of precise language and clarity from an Apostolic Exhortation is quite amazing to me. But I do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut as this really is a help to me.

What about where AL explains that “divorced and remarried” Catholics can find themselves in a situation where “a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.”? So now AL is stating that an adulterous union can have all these descriptors?.. AL is stating that a union which violates the fidelity due to the marriage vows (vows of the ‘first’ marriage) can itself demonstrate “proven fidelity”, that a union contrary to the command of Christ and that contravenes God’s law can in fact display “Christian commitment”, and that an adulterous union can be the place to provide “generous self-giving”.

First note that the phrase used is “second union” not marriage. A union can have fidelity that is different that matrimony.

Some of the cases may be natural first marriages too or non-Catholic at the time. One must apply the necessary objective and subjective qualifications which are significant. Such as, that for a grave sin to be mortal requires three things: grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will. Here the irregular couples do not give full consent of the will to the situation of living together for the benefit of the children, as stated, and accepting life as brother and sister (and not giving scandal).

So now you expand to other cases given in AL 298:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.

• One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. * The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” * There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, * or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.
• Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, * or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family.
  It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing,” with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that no “easy recipes” exist.

FC 84 is the source of part of that: “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.”
“Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid

 

[irenaeus1]

First note that the phrase used is “second union” not marriage. A union can have fidelity that is different that matrimony.

Some of the cases may be natural first marriages too or non-Catholic at the time. One must apply the necessary objective and subjective qualifications which are significant. Such as, that for a grave sin to be mortal requires three things: grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will. Here the irregular couples do not give full consent of the will to the situation of living together for the benefit of the children, as stated, and accepting life as brother and sister (and not giving scandal).

So now you expand to other cases given in AL 298:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.

• One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. * The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” * There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, * or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.
• Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, * or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family.
  It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing,” with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that no “easy recipes” exist.

FC 84 is the source of part of that: “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.”
“Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid

I will have to think about this more. Do you have any insight on 303 of AL?

AL states that there may be certain situations which are “objectively” contrary to the Church’s understanding of marriage, yet there can be acts that do not “correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel”, that nevertheless can be acknowledged as “what God himself is asking”. It would seem that AL is suggesting that there are cases, when God could be asking a person in a particular situation to do something that is objectively wrong.

 

[Vico]

I will have to think about this more. Do you have any insight on 303 of AL?

AL states that there may be certain situations which are “objectively” contrary to the Church’s understanding of marriage, yet there can be acts that do not “correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel”, that nevertheless can be acknowledged as “what God himself is asking”. It would seem that AL is suggesting that there are cases, when God could be asking a person in a particular situation to do something that is objectively wrong.

The sections need to be read together: Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment AL 301, 302, and 303.

Factors from AL 302, see also the Catechism:

• ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors
• affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability

And “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.”

Then 303:
303.  Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s* praxis* in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

 

[KSU]

Thomas J. Tobin, the Catholic bishop for the Diocese of Providence, R.I., commented on the recent Synod of Bishops on the Family held at the Vatican as “being rather Protestant” in having bishops vote on “doctrinal applications,” and added that in terms of Pope Francis’s fondness for “creating a mess,” you can say, “mission accomplished.”
cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-pope-francis-fond-creating-mess-mission-accomplished

So now, with the way in which the two Synods of Bishops on the Family have been condensed into AL, we have priests in the Confessional determining “doctrinal applications.”

Some day, we will see at least another Synod convened to sort out the effects of this overwhelming passion and sorrow Francis has for his children that suffer; in this case his children in irregular marriages.

One of the most comforting, assuring, and distinguishing hallmarks of the Catholic Church has been the clarity of its doctrine–its un-Protestantism, if you will. We Catholics might not see why it is that Christ wants us to do this or that, but we have no doubts what it is. We used to boast, “We are not like those unfortunate Protestants whose ministers have to construct their own doctrine, according to the situation.”

 

[Vico]

Thomas J. Tobin, the Catholic bishop for the Diocese of Providence, R.I., commented on the recent Synod of Bishops on the Family held at the Vatican as “being rather Protestant” in having bishops vote on “doctrinal applications,” and added that in terms of Pope Francis’s fondness for “creating a mess,” you can say, “mission accomplished.”
cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-pope-francis-fond-creating-mess-mission-accomplished

So now, with the way in which the two Synods of Bishops on the Family have been condensed into AL, we have priests in the Confessional determining “doctrinal applications.”

Some day, we will see at least another Synod convened to sort out the effects of this overwhelming passion and sorrow Francis has for his children that suffer; in this case his children in irregular marriages.

One of the most comforting, assuring, and distinguishing hallmarks of the Catholic Church has been the clarity of its doctrine–its un-Protestantism, if you will. We Catholics might not see why it is that Christ wants us to do this or that, but we have no doubts what it is. We used to boast, “We are not like those unfortunate Protestants whose ministers have to construct their own doctrine, according to the situation.”

Do you equate “doctrinal applications” with “construct their own doctrine”?

 

[KSU]

Do you equate “doctrinal applications” with “construct their own doctrine”?

I do, but I’m not speaking for the Bishop; in effect, he spoke for me.

Anyway, here’s my take: As a result of the internal forum praxis, it can’t be known whether the Church doctrine at issue is being applied basically the same way to the same situation by all priests all the time. That is exacerbated when, as here, there are different opinions by different bishops around the world guiding the application by their priests, who in turn have their individual understandings of what their bishops had in mind. That is not sound application of Catholic doctrine in the sunshine. It is, rather, a many splendored, kaleidoscopic thing driven by individual personalities. That’s just begging for corruption by situation ethics because it’s just human nature–which I don’t want Protestantizing Church doctrine. I say that with all due respect to Protestants who do the best they can (in many cases far better than many pretend Catholics).

So, to me, it’s the same as constructing one’s own own “doctrine” rather than applying an unchangeable, universally applied truth.

A Catholic doctrine is a truth so important that it must be accepted by the faithful, and is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow with respect to a given situation.

Further, what we are dealing with here is a dogma–a doctrine which the Church puts forward for belief as formally revealed by God, such as what constitutes adulterous marriage. That’s nothing to have to guess about because of a new lack of clarity.

 

[Vico]

I do, but I’m not speaking for the Bishop; in effect, he spoke for me.

Anyway, here’s my take: As a result of the internal forum praxis, it can’t be known whether the Church doctrine at issue is being applied basically the same way to the same situation by all priests all the time. That is exacerbated when, as here, there are different opinions by different bishops around the world guiding the application by their priests, who in turn have their individual understandings of what their bishops had in mind. That is not sound application of Catholic doctrine in the sunshine. It is, rather, a many splendored, kaleidoscopic thing driven by individual personalities. That’s just begging for corruption by situation ethics because it’s just human nature–which I don’t want Protestantizing Church doctrine. I say that with all due respect to Protestants who do the best they can (in many cases far better than many pretend Catholics).

So, to me, it’s the same as constructing one’s own own “doctrine” rather than applying an unchangeable, universally applied truth.

A Catholic doctrine is a truth so important that it must be accepted by the faithful, and is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow with respect to a given situation.

Further, what we are dealing with here is a dogma–a doctrine which the Church puts forward for belief as formally revealed by God, such as what constitutes adulterous marriage. That’s nothing to have to guess about because of a new lack of clarity.

So if constructing one’s own own “doctrine” is really interpretation of dogma, then it could be intentional or unintentional misunderstanding. A Catholic cannot be bound to uphold that which is not clearly stated, so if the teaching is not clear, it does not change practice.

Yes, I agree that the internal forum solution of the internal judgments of priests for irregular situations has been in use for a very long time and may vary.

The focus has been on reception of Communion rather than participation in the Eucharist.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that: “the Eucharist is not a ritual banquet, but the communal prayer of the Church”. Ref: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-orthodox-church-and-second.html

The Mass or eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy itself is the Eucharist. It is common practice that catechumens, penitents, and the excommunicated, are still obliged to participate in the Eucharist without reception of Communion.

Some Catholic clergy observe the different practice that the Orthodox have with regard to remarriage. In the case of Eastern Orthodox they admit penitential non-sacramental remarriage, celebrated with a cup instead of Communion, and there is only one sacramental marriage. Following Eastern Orthodox tradition, widows and widowers would remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world, and not remarry. The Orthodox allowing of penitential marriage derives from the power of the Church to bind and loose sins. Obviously, the Catholic Church does not hold the same view in these matters.

 

[KSU]

So if constructing one’s own own “doctrine” is really interpretation of dogma, then it could be intentional or unintentional misunderstanding. A Catholic cannot be bound to uphold that which is not clearly stated, so if the teaching is not clear, it does not change practice. To name just two jurisdictions, the prelates of Poland and Philadelphia agree with you about not changing practice.

Yes, I agree that the internal forum solution of the internal judgments of priests for irregular situations has been in use for a very long time and may vary. **Which is what can be likened to annulment at the take out window, and which I had hoped the Synods would correct. **

The focus has been on reception of Communion rather than participation in the Eucharist.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that: “the Eucharist is not a ritual banquet, but the communal prayer of the Church”. Ref: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-orthodox-church-and-second.html

The Mass or eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy itself is the Eucharist. It is common practice that catechumens, penitents, and the excommunicated, are still obliged to participate in the Eucharist without reception of Communion.

Some Catholic clergy observe the different practice that the Orthodox have with regard to remarriage. In the case of Eastern Orthodox they admit penitential non-sacramental remarriage, celebrated with a cup instead of Communion, and there is only one sacramental marriage. Following Eastern Orthodox tradition, widows and widowers would remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world, and not remarry. The Orthodox allowing of penitential marriage derives from the power of the Church to bind and loose sins. Obviously, the Catholic Church does not hold the same view in these matters.

 

[Vico]

…annulment at the take out window…

The conditions for reception of Communion, with the internal forum solution require, avoiding scandal. That may mean reception where one is not known. This would not be a problem for those the received an annulment followed by convalidation.

 

[chevalier]

Is there anything to suggest that Pope Francis and Card. Schönborn are (i) referring to forum internum solutions for those who can’t prove nullity and subsequently can’t comply with the form requirement (where it could be said they are expected to embrace continence for the sake of appearances) or (ii) otherwise incapable of complying with the form; rather than (iii) relaxing the rules and allowing a long discernment process to override the ban on communion while having relations with a non-spouse, or (iv) implying lack of subjective culpability in choosing to have relations with a non-spouse?

Calling their language clear would be a gross overstatement.

For the record, the application of dire necessity versus form requirements would be nothing new. It has already been discussed by theologians before, for example in those situations of old where there was no priest to be found within realistic distance for a very long time. For the same reason the couple were prevented from applying for an individual dispensation.

If Francis and Schönborn chose this way, they wouldn’t be making any revolution, let alone even remotely flirting with heresy or schism. But it would be limited to treating those actually, substantively free to marry as not being at fault for being unable to comply with the form required for their marriage, perhaps with the implication that their marriage were in fact sacramental regardless of the irregular way in which it came into existence. Meaning they wouldn’t be free to dump their current spouse and return to the apparent spouse indicated by the unprovably null marriage that officially appeared valid.

In fact, I would be happy if they did that. From my perspective as a lawyer, it only makes sense to recognize dire necessity whenever it exists and recognize (with Aquinas of all people), that laws aren’t made for exceptional situations, and consequently stop holding on to symbolics erected and sustained for the sake of appearances.

On the other hand, I would be devasted to hear it if they actually wanted to really relax the substantive rules relating to adultery or fornication.

 

[Vico]

Is there anything to suggest that Pope Francis and Card. Schönborn are (i) referring to forum internum solutions for those who can’t prove nullity and subsequently can’t comply with the form requirement (where it could be said they are expected to embrace continence for the sake of appearances) or (ii) otherwise incapable of complying with the form; rather than (iii) relaxing the rules and allowing a long discernment process to override the ban on communion while having relations with a non-spouse, or (iv) implying lack of subjective culpability in choosing to have relations with a non-spouse?

Calling their language clear would be a gross overstatement.

For the record, the application of dire necessity versus form requirements would be nothing new. It has already been discussed by theologians before, for example in those situations of old where there was no priest to be found within realistic distance for a very long time. For the same reason the couple were prevented from applying for an individual dispensation.

If Francis and Schönborn chose this way, they wouldn’t be making any revolution, let alone even remotely flirting with heresy or schism. But it would be limited to treating those actually, substantively free to marry as not being at fault for being unable to comply with the form required for their marriage, perhaps with the implication that their marriage were in fact sacramental regardless of the irregular way in which it came into existence. Meaning they wouldn’t be free to dump their current spouse and return to the apparent spouse indicated by the unprovably null marriage that officially appeared valid.

In fact, I would be happy if they did that. From my perspective as a lawyer, it only makes sense to recognize dire necessity whenever it exists and recognize (with Aquinas of all people), that laws aren’t made for exceptional situations, and consequently stop holding on to symbolics erected and sustained for the sake of appearances.

On the other hand, I would be devasted to hear it if they actually wanted to really relax the substantive rules relating to adultery or fornication.

AL 300 speaks for internal forum solutions:

1. … Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”.338 These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions”, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours. When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own desires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a
   double standard.

 

[chevalier]

AL 300 speaks for internal forum solutions:

1. … Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”.338 These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions”, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours. When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own desires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a
   double standard.

Quickly or not quickly, what difference does it make if exceptions can be granted at all? And what’s ‘tactful’ next to mortal sin or lack of it?

 

[KSU]

Is there anything to suggest that Pope Francis and Card. Schönborn are (i) referring to forum internum solutions for those who can’t prove nullity and subsequently can’t comply with the form requirement (where it could be said they are expected to embrace continence for the sake of appearances) or (ii) otherwise incapable of complying with the form; rather than (iii) relaxing the rules and allowing a long discernment process to override the ban on communion while having relations with a non-spouse, or (iv) implying lack of subjective culpability in choosing to have relations with a non-spouse?

Calling their language clear would be a gross overstatement…

Saw this today:
cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/07/14/pro-family-activists-launch-video-appeal-francis-end-confusion/

 

[Vico]

Quickly or not quickly, what difference does it make if exceptions can be granted at all? And what’s ‘tactful’ next to mortal sin or lack of it?

…misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions” …

Really that is covered by no gradualness in the law, in FC, cited in the text. The point there is that there are no exceptions:

Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. “And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations. In God’s plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God’s command with serene confidence in God’s grace and in his or her own will.”[95] On the same lines, it is part of the Church’s pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

 

[chevalier]

Yes, I know that passage from FC. The problem is Francis says marriage has been made into an abstract theological ideal and removed from real life. And then there’s the footnote and the ‘si, punto’.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I know that passage from FC. The problem is Francis says marriage has been made into an abstract theological ideal and removed from real life. And then there’s the footnote and the ‘si, punto’.

What are you references, exactly, document, and section, please, because I cannot make sense out of what you posted by itself?

 

[KSU]

In Post #103 I said, some day, we will see at least another Synod convened to sort out the effects [confusion] of this overwhelming passion and sorrow Francis has for his children that suffer; in this case his children in irregular marriages.

This letter may be the most significant step so far in that direction:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11324

 

[irenaeus1]

Yes, I know that passage from FC. The problem is Francis says marriage has been made into an abstract theological ideal and removed from real life. And then there’s the footnote and the ‘si, punto’.

What are you references, exactly, document, and section, please, because I cannot make sense out of what you posted by itself?

The comment about marriage having been made into an abstract theological ideal is in paragraph 26 of AL, the controversial Footnotes 321 and 359, and his in-flight interview about many new options available to the divorced and civilly remarried.

 

[Vico]

The comment about marriage having been made into an abstract theological ideal is in paragraph 26 of AL, the controversial Footnotes 321 and 359, and his in-flight interview about many new options available to the divorced and civilly remarried.

I saw no new options. Priests have been using the internal forum for decades.
Only one foot note was mentioned, and I am already aware of both 321 and 359, so which was referred to?
What does si, punto refer to?

 

[irenaeus1]

I saw no new options. Priests have been using the internal forum for decades.
Only one foot note was mentioned, and I am already aware of both 321 and 359, so which was referred to?
What does si, punto refer to?

The pope apparently saw new options. A reporter asked the pope during an in-flight interview on their way back from Lesbos on whether there were any “new concrete possibilities that did not exist before the publication of the exhortation” for the divorced and remarried, making specific reference to “the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments.” The pope began his response saying simply, “Io posso dire, si. Punto,” which means “I can say yes. Period.”