K
KSU
Guest
So why all the fuss by expert, orthodox Catholic theologians? And what exactly are all the “new ways” mentioned by Pope Francis? And why all the purposefully built in confusion in AL?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
The fuss is because there are camps in the Church, some hope for changes, so there is continuous debate.
The new ways are commented on by Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P. states:
Footnote 351 does not say so expressly. But it also does not rule it out.
Now, if it were to rule it out, that would not change in any way the current practice as presented by Familiaris Consortio. But if one is to grasp what the pope is saying, namely that something that did no[t] exist before is now possible, it is there that one must look.
With that, the regime of Familiaris Consortio has effectively changed. Not in the sense that sinners aware of their grave sin go to receive communion: this is not possible and will never be so. But in the sense that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive “the help of the sacraments” until they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then stop receiving them until they have changed their way of life to conform fully with the demands of the Gospel, according to Familiaris Consortio. This is not a matter of making an exception for them, but rather of applying to them the general regime already established for all other cases.
Familiaris Consortio recalled that it was not possible to give communion to the divorced and remarried, because it was thought that such ignorance was impossible in their situation. In effect, just as sin is not committed without knowing it or wanting it, in the same way there is no marriage without knowing and wanting it. And therefore either every attack on the fidelity of the marriage was necessarily culpable, or if the person had truly acted unknowingly, this meant without fail that his sacramental marriage was null “ab initio,” that it had never existed, in the absence of true consent to what marriage is.
Now, the progress of psychology and at the same time the “progress” of a society confused and with no point of reference make it so that ever more persons are unaware of that which was once evident to all. With the effect that what applied to all the other categories of sin also does to the divorced and remarried. One cannot fail to notice that this is happening. Even if the conditions are extremely strict, the cases are ever more numerous, in proportion to estrangement from the Church.
insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-44-2016-three-positions
K
KSU
Guest
Do I correctly read Michelet to be saying that ignorant Catholics, after AL, are able to get annulments at the take out window (internal forum)?
V
Vico
Guest
No, it means that invincible ignorance removes culpability, until the ignorance is removed. As stated, once “they become aware of this sin in spiritual accompaniment. They will then stop receiving them until they have changed their way of life to conform fully with the demands of the Gospel, according to Familiaris Consortio. This is not a matter of making an exception for them, but rather of applying to them the general regime already established for all other cases.”
K
KSU
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
It is not entirely invincible ignorance, but as written (see below) “More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.”
The quote is from Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P. and you should read the entire quote, or article, to understand what is said in full.
See what was written in Amoris Laetitia:
Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment
- For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special
discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken
into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way
being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning
mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that
all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and
are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of
the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in
understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does
not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further
sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit
the ability to make a decision”.340 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself
recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to
exercise any one of the virtues well;341 in other words, although someone may
possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the
existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is
rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in
so far as they experience difficulty in the
acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.342 - The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors:
“imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even
nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate
attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.343 In another
paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral
responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired
habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that
lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”.344 For this reason, a negative
judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the
imputability or culpability of the person involved.345 On the basis of these
convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm:
“Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act
differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to
recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is
not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a
person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these
situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the
same in all cases”.346
K
KSU
Guest
Yes, I know, but, with all due respect, so what? What specifically has been brought about by AL that we didn’t have before? Only confusion and fear in the real world that liberals now can claim authority to do openly what they have been doing all along–administer the Eucharist to people in irregular marriages.
Cardinal Wuerl says it has been affirmed that there is a difference between Church doctrine on marriage, on the one hand, and pastoral judgement concerning individuals’ “relationship to the sacraments” on the other.
Pastoral judgement (whatever that means to different people) can now differ from dogma?!
Cardinal Burke said Pope Francis made it clear that AL is not an infallible act of the magisterium. It is written as “a reflection of the Holy Father on the work of the last two sessions of the Synod of Bishops.”
The statements by those two Cardinals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But, can I get you to admit at least the obvious: When as here the people, the theologians and the prelates can’t agree among themselves on the meaning of a document by the Holy Father, there is something very wrong? It’s a strong indication that the Holy Spirit’s guidance was missing on the narrow but crucial point of contention at issue here.
An intervention for clarification is required. It’s already being initiated as mentioned in above posts.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
But the problem is–at least ISTM according to Cardinal Muller–for this particular case (i.e divorced/remarried) if the bold is not being met, even if subjectively they are innocent they can’t receive Communion by the nature of what is happening and the Church cannot change that. Similar to how a subjectively innocent unbaptized person still can’t receive Communion by the nature of their situation.
To understand what I mean, here’s part of an exchange between Antonio Spadaro, SJ and Cardinal Schonborn:
Spadaro: Please explain this to me: Pope Francis speaks here of an “objective
situation of sin.” Obviously, therefore, he is not referring to those who
have received a declaration of the nullity of their first marriage and who
have then married, nor to those who succeed in satisfying the requirement
of living together “as brother and sister.” (Their situation may be
irregular, but they are not in fact living in an objective situation of sin.)
Accordingly, the Pope is referring here to those who do not succeed in
realizing objectively our concept of marriage and in transforming their
way of life in accordance with this requirement. Is this correct?
Schonborn: Yes, certainly!
Schonborn then goes on to explain that Pope Francis was referring “in a broader way (than FC 84) to “certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.”
V
Vico
Guest
Q. What specifically has been brought about by AL that we didn’t have before?
A. Specifically that before the internal forum solution was presented in Familaris Consortio and confirmed in later documents too, has been expanded to include: that persons who do not know they are in grave sin can receive the help of the sacraments until they become aware of their sin in spiritual accompaniment.
*Spiritual accompaniment *is: ‘Help given by one Christian to another which enables that person to pay attention to God’s personal communication to him or her, to respond to this personally communicating God, and to live out of the consequence of the relationship’ (Barry and Connolly – The Practice of Spiritual Direction. Latest edition: Harper One, June 2009)
Formerly it was thought that “either every attack on the fidelity of the marriage was necessarily culpable, or if the person had truly acted unknowingly, this meant without fail that his sacramental marriage was null “ab initio,” that it had never existed, in the absence of true consent to what marriage is. Now, the progress of psychology and at the same time the “progress” of a society confused and with no point of reference make it so that ever more persons are unaware of that which was once evident to all. With the effect that what applied to all the other categories of sin also does to the divorced and remarried. One cannot fail to notice that this is happening. Even if the conditions are extremely strict, the cases are ever more numerous, in proportion to estrangement from the Church…” - Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P
Objective sin is without regard for subjective sin. So one that is subjectively certain that that there is no sin, has no bearing on existence of objective sin, because that is in the external forum. Living together without a valid marriage is misleading to some (those that are scandalized). Additionally some would be scandalized to see these receiving communion in that circumstance. Thus the condition to avoid giving scandal (this really applies to both the faithful reception and the clergy administering).
V
Vico
Guest
There are two situations (at least) given in F.C. to consider with regard to AL and some of the remarks are for one and other remarks are for the other, they are: marriage attempt with lack of form, and remarriage attempt with lack of form.
K
KSU
Guest
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I think we are talking past each other here a little bit.
Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his carnal existence, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he is not subjectively guilty. Exactly because his carnal life is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by thus receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”
The underlying assumption that Fr. Michelet has is “Familiaris Consortio recalled that it was not possible to give communion to the divorced and remarried, because it was thought that such ignorance was impossible in their situation.” And if Fr. Michelet is right about that, everything else he says follows and I have absolutely no objection. But is his underlying assumption correct? That’s what I am trying to clarify, and ISTM Cardinal Muller indicates (obviously not in direct reference to Fr. Michelet) that the underlying assumption Fr. Michelet gives is not correct, that Familiaris Consortio limited Communion for the divorced/remarried for another different reason:
Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his carnal existence, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he is not subjectively guilty. Exactly because his carnal life is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by thus receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”
V
Vico
Guest
Q. “The internal forum has never been accepted as a solution for this issue:” … “How many times are you going to try to ignore Concerning Some Objections To The Church’s Teaching On The Reception Of Holy Communion By Divorced And Remarried Members Of The Faithful” (1998).
I have never ignored it. I even posted it. I agree that is was not acceptable. That is what the father was commenting on.
As pointed out before, there are more situations than divorced and remarried of Familaris Consorti No. 84. H.H. Pope Francis remarked on the superstitious practices of the people that wait to marry in the Church until they have grandchildren, that needs to be overcome.
Pastoral Action in Certain Irregular Situations (No. 79)
a) Trial Marriages (No. 80)
b) De Facto Free Unions (No. 81)
c) Catholics in Civil Marriages (No. 82)
d) Separated or Divorced Persons Who Have Not Remarried (No. 83)
e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried (No. 84)
In Moto Proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (Sep. 8, 2015), the idea the a marriage is presumed valid (CIC Canon 1060) is modified in 1673.4, because the process is shortened: that is, proof is not rigorous as canon law requires (CIC Canon 1608).
Title V - The Briefer Matrimonial Process before the Bishop
Art. 14 § 1. Among the circumstances of things and persons that can allow a case for nullity of marriage to be handled by means of the briefer process according to cann. 1683-1687, are included, for example: the defect of faith which can generate simulation of consent or error that determines the will; a brief conjugal cohabitation; an abortion procured to avoid procreation; an obstinate persistence in an extraconjugal relationship at the time of the wedding or immediately following it; the deceitful concealment of sterility, or grave contagious illness, or children from a previous relationship, or incarcerations; a cause of marriage completely extraneous to married life, or consisting of the unexpected pregnancy of the woman, physical violence inflicted to extort consent, the defect of the use of reason which is proved by medical documents, etc.
§ 2. Among the documents supporting this petition are included all medical records that can clearly render useless the requirement of an ex officio expert.
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio_20150815_mitis-iudex-dominus-iesus.html
K
KSU
Guest
**You seem to have missed this part of the introduction to what you posed above:
"Agreeing wholeheartedly with their wishes, we have decided to publish these provisions that favor not the nullity of marriages, but the speed of processes as well as the simplicity due them, lest the clouds of doubt overshadow the hearts of the faithful awaiting a decision regarding their state because of a delayed sentence.**
V
Vico
Guest
That introduction will not stop the varied application of Bishops in their application of the shortened process which allows the named reasons and “etc.” We see this type of difficulty with application of CIC canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
The reasons for a quick petition include various categories:
- grounds for nullity – e.g., simulation, force or fear, deceit, defect of the use of reason
- possibly grounds for nullity – e.g., an extra-marital affair near the time of the wedding could mean
- a grave lack of discretion of judgement or* an inability to assume matrimonial rights and duties
- not grounds for nullity – e.g., brevity of conjugal cohabitation* unknown - et cetera
K
KSU
Guest
Nice try, but a “shortened process” still remains a formal annulment process (i.e., a juridical forum) to find grounds for annulment. That now-shortened annulment process can not be dispensed with simply because an individual went through an internal forum process.
Please let me know when the Holy Father proves me wrong by stating clearly and authoritatively that he has nullified this controlling teaching:
** "3(c) “Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.” **
V
Vico
Guest
I agree with the statement “That now-shortened annulment process can not be dispensed with simply because an individual went through an internal forum process.”
There are two topics here, that are getting mixed in to cause confusion. One is that you earlier posted on, internal forum, you posted
The second is what I posted, regarding the shortened process endangering the presumption of validity of marriege.
V
Vico
Guest
Familiaris Consortio limited Communion for the divorced and remarried that had not repented of mortal sin. And communion reception is also conditional on not giving scandal. As stated in Familiaris Consortio 84:
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]
This is also upheld in Amoris Laetitia, in saying that those in the irregular union that do not understand could receive communion, being not mortally culpable, but once there is understanding, must stop receiving communion. How can this be?
AL 301 … A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in
understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does
not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further
sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit
the ability to make a decision”.340
The cases considered are divorced and remarried, and, those the delay marriage in the Church due to superstitions, to the time they have grandchildren. Fidelity means that one avoids all sexual activity apart from one’s marriage, so fornication is an attack, as well as adultery. So in the case of delay of marriage in the Church it constitutes lack of form and is null “ab initio, Now it is saying that public bond could possibly be substantial when ignorance is present, of course without stating it was a marriage. We know that the Church does allow per canon law that a Catholic marriage can be valid between the baptized even without a minister, either through the unavailability of priest for a month or dispensation from form (as in a radical sanation).
Finalis Relatio contained item 54 regarding leading that kind of public bond to the Sacrament of Matrimony:
54. When a couple in an irregular union reaches a noteworthy stability through a public bond — and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials — this can be seen as an opportunity, where possible, to lead the couple to celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony.
In the following “ab initio” must refer to a first marriage attempt:
K
KSU
Guest
The relevant point is that anyway you look at it, a formal annulment process–short, long or between–is still required. Therefore, AL did not, as you allege, bring about an annulment process via the internal form.
- Status