Cardinal Schonborn on 'Amoris Laetitia'

[Vico]

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.”

It refers to Footnote 351. 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

 

[CrossofChrist]

It refers to Footnote 351. 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

In this thread I’m trying to understand if what you quote above makes sense.

The following from Cardinal Muller appears to me to contradict that:

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.”

And…

*Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees. Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations.
*

Then again, I’m not sure the above necessarily contradicts those in favor of Communion for the divorced/remarried. For example, I’ve recently tried to read up on what Cardinal Kasper proposed and he calls for penance, conversion, and Confession before receiving the Eucharist…the controversy seems to me to be centered around what constitutes a “firm purpose of amendment”, which requires discernment in order to avoid laxism or rigorism.

 

[irenaeus1]

It refers to Footnote 351. 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

Interesting take considering FC 84 does not mention awareness or culpability in regards to abstaining from the Eucharist. The criterion is that divorced and civilly remarried couples are in an objectively grave situation, and this itself is sufficient reason for not being admitted to Holy Communion… mortal sin is not discussed here.

 

[Vico]

Interesting take considering FC 84 does not mention awareness or culpability in regards to abstaining from the Eucharist. The criterion is that divorced and civilly remarried couples are in an objectively grave situation, and this itself is sufficient reason for not being admitted to Holy Communion… mortal sin is not discussed here.

The objective aspect is in avoiding scandal. Also stated:

While distinguishing the situations, John Paul II had maintained the rule, for a pastoral reason and therefore out of a prudential decision, for the sake of avoiding scandal. It is therefore not contrary to divine doctrine and law that Pope Francis should make another prudential decision, taking into consideration these possibilities of the distortion of conscience, while still holding firm the rule of avoiding scandal (AL 299).

 

[Brendan]

The objective aspect is in avoiding scandal. Also stated:

While distinguishing the situations, John Paul II had maintained the rule, for a pastoral reason and therefore out of a prudential decision, for the sake of avoiding scandal. It is therefore not contrary to divine doctrine and law that Pope Francis should make another prudential decision, taking into consideration these possibilities of the distortion of conscience, while still holding firm the rule of avoiding scandal (AL 299).

The objective aspect given in FC 84 was in regards to the state in life, not scandal

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…

The reason of scandal is specifically referred to as an additional reason

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.

The reason of scandal is certainly a pastoral issue, but the objective reality being violated is also specifically Scriptural, and thus not something that is subject to change.

 

[Vico]

The objective aspect given in FC 84 was in regards to the state in life, not scandal

The reason of scandal is specifically referred to as an additional reason

The reason of scandal is certainly a pastoral issue, but the objective reality being violated is also specifically Scriptural, and thus not something that is subject to change.

Scandal is given, not necessarily due to sin, therefore it does not require a determination of subjective state of sin. The sense of objective that I mean is in giving scandal. Not giving scandal has always been included as a condition of reception and is tied to state in life, because those that may be admitted to communion have already repented, but due to inability to separate (which means they do not remain together willfully) so it appears objectively as sin.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Scandal is given, not necessarily due to sin, therefore it does not require a determination of subjective state of sin. The sense of objective that I mean is in giving scandal. Not giving scandal has always been included as a condition of reception and is tied to state in life, because those that may be admitted to communion have already repented, but due to inability to separate (which means they do not remain together willfully) so it appears objectively as sin.

But that’s not the sense in which it is normally used.

Regarding the “si, punto” it seems to me that the Pope is referring to new possibilities in general. Here’s the question:

Some sustain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that regulates access to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, that the Law, the pastoral praxis and obviously the doctrine remain the same. Others sustain that much has changed and that there are new openings and possibilities. For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not?

The Pope has repeatedly said the doctrine is unchanged, so his “yes” clearly isn’t attempting to address everything mentioned in the question but just whether or not there are any new possibilities at all for the divorced/remarried in the Church’s life. And the Pope said “yes, many”.

Here’s an example from Cardinal Muller for “new possibilities”:

On this journey (of integration) we also find another innovation opened by the pope in “Amoris Laetitia.” Without changing the general canonical regulations, the pope admits that there may be exceptions regarding the assumption of certain public ecclesial offices by these divorced persons. The criterion is, as I indicated before, the person’s journey of concrete growth toward healing.

 

[john81]

Please go to this link about a critical analysis of Amoris Laetitia by theologians far smarter than any of us.

Letter to the Pope and names who support the analysis:

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/45-theologians-criticize-amoris-laetitia-17347

The actual document which goes point by point comparing comments in the document and actual church teaching, very well done:

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/45-theologians-criticize-amoris-laetitia-17347

 

[OraLabora]

Please go to this link about a critical analysis of Amoris Laetitia by theologians far smarter than any of us.

Letter to the Pope and names who support the analysis:

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/45-theologians-criticize-amoris-laetitia-17347

The actual document which goes point by point comparing comments in the document and actual church teaching, very well done:

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/45-theologians-criticize-amoris-laetitia-17347

 

[CrossofChrist]

x2

 

[john81]

But that’s not the sense in which it is normally used.

Regarding the “si, punto” it seems to me that the Pope is referring to new possibilities in general. Here’s the question:

Some sustain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that regulates access to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, that the Law, the pastoral praxis and obviously the doctrine remain the same. Others sustain that much has changed and that there are new openings and possibilities. For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not?

The Pope has repeatedly said the doctrine is unchanged, so his “yes” clearly isn’t attempting to address everything mentioned in the question but just whether or not there are any new possibilities at all for the divorced/remarried in the Church’s life. And the Pope said “yes, many”.

Here’s an example from Cardinal Muller for “new possibilities”:

On this journey (of integration) we also find another innovation opened by the pope in “Amoris Laetitia.” Without changing the general canonical regulations, the pope admits that there may be exceptions regarding the assumption of certain public ecclesial offices by these divorced persons. The criterion is, as I indicated before, the person’s journey of concrete growth toward healing.

Again, links to 45 theologians from around the world (in good standing with the Catholic Church) who dissected and showed church teaching versus what was in Amoris Laetitia. It is a very truthful outline of traditional church beliefs versus content in the document. It makes clear the obvious short falls of the document.

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/45-theologians-criticize-amoris-laetitia-17347

sspx.org/en/amoris-laetitia-critical-analysis

 

[CrossofChrist]

Again, links to 45 theologians from around the world (in good standing with the Catholic Church) who dissected and showed church teaching versus what was in Amoris Laetitia. It is a very truthful outline of traditional church beliefs versus content in the document. It makes clear the obvious short falls of the document.

sspx.org/en/news-events/news/45-theologians-criticize-amoris-laetitia-17347

sspx.org/en/amoris-laetitia-critical-analysis

While I did not read all of the critical analysis and sort of skimmed it, I stopped reading it after the first 5 “heretical propositions”. It seemed unusually harsh…I mean really, would anyone include in a list with “theological censures” of “heretical propositions” for Pope Benedict if he said “Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected”?

I know it is then clarified when after each quote it says, “If understood…”, and after my skimming of the preface it seems the real concern is about “vagueness and ambiguity” leading to error rather than the document itself being per se in error. Should the Pope have once again clearly stated the divorced and remarried can’t receive Communion? One could argue that should’ve been done, and one can also come up with reasons for why he was right in not doing that. But look, at the end of the day the onslaught of criticism for the Pope makes me .

 

[john81]

While I did not read all of the critical analysis and sort of skimmed it, I stopped reading it after the first 5 “heretical propositions”. It seemed unusually harsh…I mean really, would anyone include in a list with “theological censures” of “heretical propositions” for Pope Benedict if he said “Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected”?

I know it is then clarified when after each quote it says, “If understood…”, and after my skimming of the preface it seems the real concern is about “vagueness and ambiguity” leading to error rather than the document itself being per se in error. Should the Pope have once again clearly stated the divorced and remarried can’t receive Communion? One could argue that should’ve been done, and one can also come up with reasons for why he was right in not doing that. But look, at the end of the day the onslaught of criticism for the Pope makes me .

I understand what your saying. He is our Holy Father and we want all clergy to be the perfect examples of Christ, so criticism can be easy. On the other hand, I thought they did a good job of showing “this is what the document says” versus “this is what the church has said in the past”. They stated in the beginning that there intent was not to label the Pope as a heretic, but that he PLEASE renounce some of the content which reads that way.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I understand what your saying. He is our Holy Father and we want all clergy to be the perfect examples of Christ, so criticism can be easy. On the other hand, I thought they did a good job of showing “this is what the document says” versus “this is what the church has said in the past”. They stated in the beginning that there intent was not to label the Pope as a heretic, but that he PLEASE renounce some of the content which reads that way.

I still think they miss the point (at least in the first 5 points which is what I read). Especially when read in context it isn’t very hard to see what the Pope is trying to say. It seems to me the only real point of contention is the footnote 351 and some of the paragraphs in the early 300’s where some people are reading into those that the divorced/remarried can receive Communion without conversion and Confession. But even those paragraphs and the footnote shouldn’t be a problem.

Right after the “si, punto” remark–in the same response to the same question–Pope Francis said to read what Cardinal Schonborn said in presenting the Apostolic Exhortation, saying, “In that presentation, your question will find an answer.” So what did Cardinal Schonborn say? He said, “Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84)” (emphasis mine). And we know what FC 84 says for the divorced/remarried.

 

[pnewton]

The criterion is that divorced and civilly remarried couples are in an objectively grave situation, and this itself is sufficient reason for not being admitted to Holy Communion… mortal sin is not discussed here.

I see this as an area of both disagreement, and future discussion. Objective mortal sin seems to be the sensible criteria to apply in the discipline the Church uses. However, objective mortal sin is not what separates us from God. Only actual, personal mortal sin kills the actual communion we have with Christ. So we can easily have too view points; that the Church must focus only on the objective facts and apply all disciplines without exception, and that the focus on the objective facts is only the starting point, with a pastoral element that allows deviation from the discipline to match the subjective reality.

Then we have the odd twist that the truly objective situation exists before a marriage tribunal, and maybe even contrary to those findings.

 

[Vico]

But that’s not the sense in which it is normally used.

Regarding the “si, punto” it seems to me that the Pope is referring to new possibilities in general. Here’s the question:

Some sustain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that regulates access to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, that the Law, the pastoral praxis and obviously the doctrine remain the same. Others sustain that much has changed and that there are new openings and possibilities. For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not?

The Pope has repeatedly said the doctrine is unchanged, so his “yes” clearly isn’t attempting to address everything mentioned in the question but just whether or not there are any new possibilities at all for the divorced/remarried in the Church’s life. And the Pope said “yes, many”.

Here’s an example from Cardinal Muller for “new possibilities”:

On this journey (of integration) we also find another innovation opened by the pope in “Amoris Laetitia.” Without changing the general canonical regulations, the pope admits that there may be exceptions regarding the assumption of certain public ecclesial offices by these divorced persons. The criterion is, as I indicated before, the person’s journey of concrete growth toward healing.

Actually it is, for manifest grave sin. CIC Canon law:

Can. 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.

Can. 1007 The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

Yes, there have always been exceptions, but the Church teaches not to receive sacraments when not properly disposed.

The comments before were with regard to Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Actually it is, for manifest grave sin.

I’m still not convinced that “objective” is referring to scandal. Seems more about doctrine than about pastoral considerations in the following writing from Cardinal Muller:

*The Magisterium of the Church…“reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, of 22 November 1981, N. 84; also compare the Letter of this Congregation of 14 September 1994 about the reception of Communion by remarried divorced faithful, which rejects the proposal from the Oberrhein bishops; and Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22 February 2009, N. 29).

This position of the Magisterium is well-founded. Remarried divorcees stand in the way of their access to the Eucharist, insofar as their state of life is an objective contradiction to the relationship of love between Christ and the Church, which is made visible and present in the Eucharist (doctrinal reason). If these people were allowed to receive the Eucharist this would cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage (pastoral reason).*

 

[Vico]

I’m still not convinced that “objective” is referring to scandal. Seems more about doctrine than about pastoral considerations in the following writing from Cardinal Muller:

*The Magisterium of the Church…“reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, of 22 November 1981, N. 84; also compare the Letter of this Congregation of 14 September 1994 about the reception of Communion by remarried divorced faithful, which rejects the proposal from the Oberrhein bishops; and Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22 February 2009, N. 29).

This position of the Magisterium is well-founded. Remarried divorcees stand in the way of their access to the Eucharist, insofar as their state of life is an objective contradiction to the relationship of love between Christ and the Church, which is made visible and present in the Eucharist (doctrinal reason). If these people were allowed to receive the Eucharist this would cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage (pastoral reason).*

To: “cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage” is scandal.

 

[CrossofChrist]

To: “cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage” is scandal.

Yes, that’s the pastoral reason. But ISTM the Cardinal adds a distinction between the pastoral and doctrinal, and lists the objectivity of the situation as the doctrinal reason.

 

[Vico]

Yes, that’s the pastoral reason. But ISTM the Cardinal adds a distinction between the pastoral and doctrinal, and lists the objectivity of the situation as the doctrinal reason.

Subjective as opposed to objective. Pastoral means the ministerial application of doctrine and moral teachings to the specific circumstance. In the internal forum, subjective can be considered. With the condition of not giving scandal and being without conjugal relations some that have repented of breaking the objective sign of the covenant, are admitted to communion. Not giving scandal, repentence, and being properly disposed, are all doctrinal.