Cardinal Schonborn on 'Amoris Laetitia'

[deaconjohnO]

Regarding the practice of reading documents and reading them in light of the new. I believe this may be true when a new theological understanding has been hashed out but I question whether a new document can be twisted so much as to contradict an older document. I believe that is what some people are claiming with AL and FC.

I find it impossible to twist the words of Saint John Paul II (the great and may he be declared a Doctor of The Church some day).
St JPII

“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” (FC 84)

WHAT A CLARITY!

 

[KSU]

Regarding the practice of reading documents and reading them in light of the new. I believe this may be true when a new theological understanding has been hashed out but I question whether a new document can be twisted so much as to contradict an older document. I believe that is what some people are claiming with AL and FC.

I find it impossible to twist the words of Saint John Paul II (the great and may he be declared a Doctor of The Church some day).
St JPII

“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” (FC 84)

WHAT A CLARITY!

Of course; that’s why we now hear the “Oh, it’s not a change in teaching, it’s just a reform of pastoral practice” gambit. Clarity is precisely what is not wanted by those who need man-made confusion to cover unauthorized change. That’s how VC II was hijacked and sold to the uneducated–an authorized reform (i.e., destruction) of Catholic architecture, music, liturgy and education. St JPII and BXVI were forced to initiate measures to undo the confusion and damage, but that seems to be on hold now.

 

[pnewton]

Regarding the practice of reading documents and reading them in light of the new. I believe this may be true when a new theological understanding has been hashed out but I question whether a new document can be twisted so much as to contradict an older document. I believe that is what some people are claiming with AL and FC.!

I see a lot of twisting both ways. A simple reading is not all that difficult, if you do not look for what you want to see. AB Chaput praised the exhortation.

I think I will disagree with the initial proposition that his writings about it are contradictory to anything Cardinal Schonborn has said.

 

[Vico]

Regarding the practice of reading documents and reading them in light of the new. I believe this may be true when a new theological understanding has been hashed out but I question whether a new document can be twisted so much as to contradict an older document. I believe that is what some people are claiming with AL and FC.

I find it impossible to twist the words of Saint John Paul II (the great and may he be declared a Doctor of The Church some day).
St JPII

“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” (FC 84)

WHAT A CLARITY!

Also reiterated by Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in 1994:

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “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, for example, for 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’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Then Sacramentum Caritatis in 2007 by H.H. Pope Benedict:

Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage (97).

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

 

[deaconjohnO]

I see a lot of twisting both ways. A simple reading is not all that difficult, if you do not look for what you want to see. AB Chaput praised the exhortation.

I think I will disagree with the initial proposition that his writings about it are contradictory to anything Cardinal Schonborn has said.

could you please explain to me what the wonderful saint meant then?

 

[pnewton]

could you please explain to me what the wonderful saint meant then?

On what point? It is a very long document.

If you mean whether it is magisterial, that is found in the context, not the document. It was an exhortation that both references, and follows, two synods called to discussed the issue. This is the very meaning of magisterial. It is not the Pope’s personal opinion in a vacuum.

 

[irenaeus1]

On what point? It is a very long document.

If you mean whether it is magisterial, that is found in the context, not the document. It was an exhortation that both references, and follows, two synods called to discussed the issue. This is the very meaning of magisterial. It is not the Pope’s personal opinion in a vacuum.

I think that is a critical note. The more controversial and ambiguous portions of AL reference statements from the two previous Synods, quotes speeches and homilies given by the pope himself, and one apparent misquote or misrepresentation of Thomas Aquinas. AL was not able to find an official magisterial statement with which to reference in support of any nuanced “development.”

 

[pnewton]

AL was not able to find an official magisterial statement with which to reference in support of any nuanced “development.”

But it is a magisterial statement, in and of itself. All the “controversial” or so-called ambiguous sections are supported by the first 90% of the document. They are seen as such primarily because of the tendency to “fast-forward to the juicy parts”, as well as the desire for very specific, top-down, rigidity that is avoided. This is the teaching. It is not ambiguity, is is subsidiarity.

 

[irenaeus1]

But it is a magisterial statement, in and of itself. All the “controversial” or so-called ambiguous sections are supported by the first 90% of the document. They are seen as such primarily because of the tendency to “fast-forward to the juicy parts”, as well as the desire for very specific, top-down, rigidity that is avoided. This is the teaching. It is not ambiguity, is is subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity does not get to trump doctrine. BTW, do you think that the Church has been rigid on this topic for 2000 years, but only just now saw the light to become more pastoral this past April? Recall that it was Jesus who was rigid and the Pharisees who, for the hardness of their heart, were lax.

And how are the controversial and ambiguous parts supported by the first 90%? Nothing the first 90% definitively help to interpret the controversial and ambiguous parts as evidenced by all the diametrically opposing interpretations of many bishops and theologians.

 

[irenaeus1]

While circumstances and intentions can mitigate the culpability of an individual regarding moral acts, there are certain moral acts that are always and everywhere gravely illicit and evil. We know what the magisterium has clearly taught regarding, for example, adultery; namely, that it is intrinsically evil and an objectively grave wrong.

So, if AL really does allow for a divorced and civilly remarried couple (i.e., a couple who was validly married and divorced and are now in an ‘irregular’ union), after discernment with a priest, to receive Holy Communion (even if they are not willing to live chastely as brother and sister), then it can be said that the Church knowingly and willingly is sanctioning certain individuals who are known to be involved in an objectively grave (intrinsically evil) situation to be properly disposed and in the state of grace. This is what I cannot get my head around. How can this be true?

 

[Vico]

While circumstances and intentions can mitigate the culpability of an individual regarding moral acts, there are certain moral acts that are always and everywhere gravely illicit and evil. We know what the magisterium has clearly taught regarding, for example, adultery; namely, that it is intrinsically evil and an objectively grave wrong.

So, if AL really does allow for a divorced and civilly remarried couple (i.e., a couple who was validly married and divorced and are now in an ‘irregular’ union), after discernment with a priest, to receive Holy Communion (even if they are not willing to live chastely as brother and sister), then it can be said that the Church knowingly and willingly is sanctioning certain individuals who are known to be involved in an objectively grave (intrinsically evil) situation to be properly disposed and in the state of grace. This is what I cannot get my head around. How can this be true?

The church does not approve of the reception of the Eucharist for a person that is not properly disposed (in the state of Sanctifying Grace). Added to what you posted above is the requirement to avoid giving scandal both by the clergy and the faithful, and scandal may be given to the weak through either mortal or venial sin, or even no sin.

 

[ichabode]

It would seem that this Pope labors over trying to make life fair. To quote my mom, “nobody said life is fair”. Too many of these post have reasoned that someone got a raw deal and they should be able to receive communion, or they have a right to communion, or why should they suffer in the pews and not be admitted to the Eucharist.

We have become a society of the Baseball Jesus photo. I feel the real reason why so many people leave the Church is because they are lied to. You hear it all the time, “I can’t believe in a God that would allow X to happen”. It was Jesus himself who scolded the Jews and said, “Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of your hearts”. As a Catholic are our hearts so hardened have we turned away from God so much, that Pope Francis is to give us what we want?

Jesus said take up your cross, and St. Paul in Romans said we are children of God provided we suffer. The pathway to hell is wide, but to heaven is narrow. Yes, sometimes an innocent man or woman will suffer in this life, but is not that the very example of our Master and Savior Jesus? If our Master was treated so why would we be treated better than He?

I guess I just miss the point of AL it seems to meander and does not call or prepare any of us for the road ahead. Perhaps too many of us have never really suffered in life and desire once again to take that which is Holy and sacred and make common.

 

[pnewton]

Subsidiarity does not get to trump doctrine.

This is where logic is important. This statement assumes a doctrine that has not been defined as a doctrine.(begging the question) At the first synod, there was a minority opinion that the remarried receiving communion was a doctrine, or more precisely, an inescapable conclusion from doctrine. Subsidiarity does allow those that do not hold to the not to be bound by this, while allowing those who in conscience believe it doctrinal, to act in that regard.

This is why most clergy have no issue with the exhortation. Even those that believe in a strict understanding of the issue will describe it as a “practice” when writing.

 

[pnewton]

It would seem that this Pope labors over trying to make life fair. To quote my mom, “nobody said life is fair”. Too many of these post have reasoned that someone got a raw deal and they should be able to receive communion, or they have a right to communion, or why should they suffer in the pews and not be admitted to the Eucharist.

God is just. The Church tries to act with justice. This is not a bad thing. Calling it “fair” only downplays those that look to what is just, along with what is merciful, something that the Church is, even if “life” is not.

 

[irenaeus1]

This is where logic is important. This statement assumes a doctrine that has not been defined as a doctrine.(begging the question) At the first synod, there was a minority opinion that the remarried receiving communion was a doctrine, or more precisely, an inescapable conclusion from doctrine. Subsidiarity does allow those that do not hold to the not to be bound by this, while allowing those who in conscience believe it doctrinal, to act in that regard.

This is why most clergy have no issue with the exhortation. Even those that believe in a strict understanding of the issue will describe it as a “practice” when writing.

I often hear that AL may offer development in certain aspects of doctrine, but that it is completely in line with Church teaching without specifically addressing how this is so. However, those who challenge AL typically offer concrete examples of problems or apparent errors in AL citing the specific portion that seems erroneous and comparing this to official Church teaching. This is what I would like to see specifically addressed from those who defend AL.

 

[TMC]

I often hear that AL may offer development in certain aspects of doctrine, but that it is completely in line with Church teaching without specifically addressing how this is so. However, those who challenge AL typically offer concrete examples of problems or apparent errors in AL citing the specific portion that seems erroneous and comparing this to official Church teaching. This is what I would like to see specifically addressed from those who defend AL.

Well, AL is official Church teaching. That said, I don’t find any conflict with other Church teaching. Most of the “challenges” are not coming from those is a postion of authority, at least based on what I have seen.

 

[irenaeus1]

Well, AL is official Church teaching. That said, I don’t find any conflict with other Church teaching. Most of the “challenges” are not coming from those is a postion of authority, at least based on what I have seen.

Whether or not the challenges come from someone in authority is irrelevant. Even a non-Catholic secular historian or a non-Christian inquirer are within their rights to ask for clarification of what is known to be Church teaching and an apparent problematic statement in AL.

 

[irenaeus1]

Well, AL is official Church teaching. That said, I don’t find any conflict with other Church teaching.

You don’t see a conflict in AL footnote 329?

AL footnote #329 reads as follows:

“In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’.”

This seems to be completely in error since it is official Church teaching that all sexual acts outside of marriage are intrinsically evil and therefore are never justifiable, even in order to achieve a “good”. Also, what exactly does “faithfulness” mean in the context of a union that itself violates the fidelity due to the original marriage. Are we really talking about “faithfulness” in an adulterous relationship? Could this then apply also to someone who is “faithful” to their mistress, or only after they have obtained a divorce from their spouse and subsequently marry their mistress? And how can it be said that children might end up suffering if their parents live chastely or are we to conclude that there are times when the children benefit when their parents continue to commit adultery?

These are the type of concrete examples I’m talking about. And those who defend AL need to state more than simply saying there is no contradiction or conflict. Please explain how.

 

[TMC]

You don’t see a conflict in AL footnote 329?

No, I don’t.

AL footnote #329 reads as follows:

“In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’.”

This seems to be completely in error since it is official Church teaching that all sexual acts outside of marriage are intrinsically evil and therefore are never justifiable, even in order to achieve a “good”. Also, what exactly does “faithfulness” mean in the context of a union that itself violates the fidelity due to the original marriage. Are we really talking about “faithfulness” in an adulterous relationship? Could this then apply also to someone who is “faithful” to their mistress, or only after they have obtained a divorce from their spouse and subsequently marry their mistress? And how can it be said that children might end up suffering if their parents live chastely or are we to conclude that there are times when the children benefit when their parents continue to commit adultery?

These are the type of concrete examples I’m talking about. And those who defend AL need to state more than simply saying there is no contradiction or conflict. Please explain how.

First of all, again, Amoris Laetitia is official Church teaching. You seem to assume that it is not, or that the Pope must somehow “prove” that it is official or free from error. Certainly Catholics are free to seek explanation, but the Church’s teachings are not contingent on satisfying all critics.

Secondly, what do you mean by explaining how footnote 329 does not conflict with the Church’s teaching on the morality of adultery? Footnote 329 does not say that adultery is acceptable.

 

[irenaeus1]

No, I don’t.

First of all, again, Amoris Laetitia is official Church teaching. You seem to assume that it is not, or that the Pope must somehow “prove” that it is official or free from error. Certainly Catholics are free to seek explanation, but the Church’s teachings are not contingent on satisfying all critics.

Secondly, what do you mean by explaining how footnote 329 does not conflict with the Church’s teaching on the morality of adultery? Footnote 329 does not say that adultery is acceptable.

Not all statements made in an official document of the Church is necessarily official teaching. But more to the point… if Footnote 329 is not saying adultery is acceptable, it sure seems dangerously close. Read it again: it sounds like it is saying that although a couple may know they should live chastely, it could be that living chastely could endanger the good of the children. Never mind that the quote used is actually from Vatican II in reference to married Catholics, in the context of procreation, not in regards to those cohabiting in an invalid union.