Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[NewEnglandPriest]

The insight from the 3rd world POV is important to keep in mind. But also to keep in mind that all of St. JP II’s formation and priesthood was spent under conditions of brutal war, massive populations of displaced persons and separated families, then decades of an atheistic government that did everything possible to destroy the family, destroy parishes, and destroy dioceses, and push industrialization.

Since much of the recent teaching on marriage and family comes from this man, it helps to consider that his thinking was not molded in some idyllic, stable, old time village.

The world has changed. Mobilization is so far ahead of even where it was 20 years ago.

And even Pope Benedict XVI pushed for annulment system reforms. Pope Benedict questioned whether a lack of faith could invalidate a marriage.

 

[Brendan]

And even Pope Benedict XVI pushed for annulment system reforms. Pope Benedict questioned whether a lack of faith could invalidate a marriage.

That one was always an interesting one for me: it would imply that agnostics could not enter into a valid natural marriage.

 

[Thomas_White]

Quoted from the Crux article: "The pope doesn’t give binary answers to abstract questions. His response is to approve and to encourage positive pastoral practices. A clear and obvious example was his response to the Buenos Aires area bishops, when he encouraged them and affirmed their reading of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ was correct…

“It is therefore possible that, in certain cases, a person who is in an objective situation of sin can receive the help of the sacraments, yes.”

This is a binary answer to the abstract question of whether those in an irregular second marriage who cannot receive an annulment may, at least in some case, be permitted to receive communion.

That answer is ‘yes’. Any discernment is apparently left for the individual. It seems to me that it would be better to clarify the matter by providing a definitive response to the request for clarification.

This is solely my opinion and is provided in light of the forum’s encouragement of discussion.

 

[commenter]

The world has changed. Mobilization is so far ahead of even where it was 20 years ago.

In the last few centuries, has there **ever **been a generation that people did not say
“What worked in the past was fine, but you have to understand, things are **different **now!”

 

[TCEL]

In the last few centuries, has there **ever **been a generation that people did not say
“What worked in the past was fine, but you have to understand, things are **different **now!”

Paraphrasing Chesterton, “It can’t be said that somehow Christ’s message was more acceptable in his time, but not in our own. Exactly how acceptable it was in his time is perhaps evidenced by his death.”

 

[TCEL]

How many people in these marriage situations are discerning the reception of Communion, and know the Church’s reflections on the Eucharist and Christian marriage? Are they being guided to reflect on this? Why don’t we get out the word? It’s truly beautiful.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In the last few centuries, has there **ever **been a generation that people did not say
“What worked in the past was fine, but you have to understand, things are **different **now!”

Things do change and the Church changes what can be changed to suit the needs of the present generation. Obviously the Church does not change doctrine, but Her pastoral practices and systems adapt.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That one was always an interesting one for me: it would imply that agnostics could not enter into a valid natural marriage.

No, it would only question whether a baptized person who became an atheist could enter into a sacramental marriage. All sacraments presuppose faith to a certain degree (CCC 1123).

 

[_Abyssinia]

Africa isn’t the only relatively poor part of the world. The current annulment system is actually a very large problem in Latin America, thus Pope Francis’ concern regarding this matter. Latin America struggles with the current system because so many people move around so much and communication between locations is not always easy.
I deal with Latin American immigrants who look at me like I have 10 heads when I ask them if they have any idea where their former spouse is living or any relatives that could be contacted. Until the recent media coverage of Pope Francis saying he wants to simplify the system they used to just walk away after hearing what an annulment entailed and not come back. Now they have hope their situations can be resolved…

In what way do they hope their situations can now resolved? They hope now they can take Communion despite not being able to get an annulment? What about living as brother and sister?

I don’t thing I’ve heard anyone who supports the idea of Communion for the divorced and remarried who can not get an annulment say it should only be for certain locations or people from certain locations. It seems to be more general, for anybody who can not get annulment. Unless I’m mistaken. But regardless of get diifculty in getting an annulment, the issue remains that the validity of the marriage can not be established in some cases, because of moving or whatever reason, that is just the reality of the situation and these people need pastoral guidance and help to move forward.

I just cannot get my head around this whole issue. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The idea of Communion for the divorced and remarried who can not get an annulment and the idea that they may not have to remain abstinent, I can’t just make it work in my mind, the pieces of puzzles so to speak, the doctrine issues, the issue of disicipline. That is why I hope for clarity from either the CDF by instruction from Pope Francis or by Pope Francis directly himself.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The world has changed. Mobilization is so far ahead of even where it was 20 years ago.

And even Pope Benedict XVI pushed for annulment system reforms. Pope Benedict questioned whether a lack of faith could invalidate a marriage.

Pope Benedict said in 2013:

The indissoluble pact between a man and a woman does not, for the purposes of the sacrament, require of those engaged to be married, their personal faith; what it does require, as a necessary minimal condition, is the intention to do what the Church does. However, if it is important not to confuse the problem of the intention with that of the personal faith of those contracting marriage, it is nonetheless impossible to separate them completely. As the International Theological Commission observed in a Document of 1977: “Where there is no trace of faith (in the sense of the term ‘belief’ — being disposed to believe), and no desire for grace or salvation is found, then a real doubt arises as to whether there is the above-mentioned and truly sacramental intention and whether in fact the contracted marriage is validly contracted or not” (La dottrina cattolica sul sacramento del matrimonio [Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage] [1977], 2.3: Documenti 1969-2004, Vol. 13, Bologna 2006, p. 145).

However Blessed John Paul II, addressing this Tribunal 10 years ago, pointed out that “an attitude on the part of those getting married that does not take into account the supernatural dimension of marriage can render it null and void only if it undermines its validity on the natural level on which the sacramental sign itself takes place” (John Paul II, Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, 30 January 2003). With regard to this problem it will be necessary, especially in today’s context, to promote further reflection.w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130126_rota-romana.html

Pope Francis himself said earlier this year:

It is worth clearly reiterating that the essential component of marital consent is not the quality of one’s faith, which according to unchanging doctrine can be undermined only on the plane of the natural (cf. CIC c. 1055 §§ 1,2). Indeed, the habitus fidei is infused at the moment of Baptism and continues to have a mysterious influence in the soul, even when faith has not been developed and psychologically speaking seems to be absent. It is not uncommon that couples are led to true marriage by the instinctus naturae and at the moment of its celebration they have a limited awareness of the fullness of God’s plan.

m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2016/january/documents/papa-francesco_20160122_anno-giudiziario-rota-romana.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church is for sinners not the perfect. Alcoholics, liars, philanderers, etc do not deny the Commandments though they may be in a state of weakness whereby they regularly fail.
Many in irregular marriages, regardless of the past rights and wrongs, are often in a stable relationship with dependent children, the previous marriage is irretrievable…putting them also in a position of weakness insofar as they cannot be expected to separate though they would obey the Church if they could and it truly was the best thing for them to do.
Why does this unfortunate situation intrinsically necessitate they deny the indissolubility of marriage and do not in fact repent of their ongoing “sin”? The Church does not demand that they separate. However, they are expected to abstain from the marital relations. Let me ask you, if one or the other of the party suddenly was in a car accident and could no longer have sex, would you tell the other spouse, 'well now that your spouse can no longer have sex with you, you need to leave them because after all, sex is too important to give up?" I doubt it. What really is the difference? Just because a person ‘can’ do something does not mean that he or she ‘should’ do it, and that relates to just about everything in life, not simply sex.

In some cases of irregular marriage there may be no prior bond before God anways…but for purely technical reasons a Tribunal has been unable to recognize that likely reality.

Unless you have specific examples, this is speculation. Yes, I can hear you, “There are no witnesses, the ex cannot be found, so the Tribunal cannot decide” --but that is in fact not the case. It may be more difficult and take longer, but even in such a situation, the Tribunal can make a decision.

Do Tribunals always make the right decision? No, but does that mean we say, “It’s not necessary to follow the process since sometimes they are wrong?” Do we do that with our legal system? “Hey, some murderers walk. Let’s do away with trials for murder and let the person determine for themselves if they are guilty”. . .again, I don’t think so.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In what way do they hope their situations can now resolved? They hope now they can take Communion despite not being able to get an annulment? What about living as brother and sister?

I don’t thing I’ve heard anyone who supports the idea of Communion for the divorced and remarried who can not get an annulment say it should only be for certain locations or people from certain locations. It seems to be more general, for anybody who can not get annulment. Unless I’m mistaken. But regardless of get diifculty in getting an annulment, the issue remains that the validity of the marriage can not be established in some cases, because of moving or whatever reason, that is just the reality of the situation and these people need pastoral guidance and help to move forward.

I just cannot get my head around this whole issue. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The idea of Communion for the divorced and remarried who can not get an annulment and the idea that they may not have to remain abstinent, I can’t just make it work in my mind, the pieces of puzzles so to speak, the doctrine issues, the issue of disicipline. That is why I hope for clarity from either the CDF by instruction from Pope Francis or by Pope Francis directly himself.

I second you on all points. My mother was married to a divorced Protestant and never received the Eucharist for all the years they were married (and his prior marriage was when he was 16, during WW1, and lasted all of 8 months, so very likely a decree would go through fairly quickly nowadays, unlike the 1950s). This is a slap in the face to my mother and those like her who knew that even if they FELT this was their true marriage, submitted to the 2000 year truth of the Catholic Church humbly and managed to accept the sacrifice that went along with not being able to receive until/unless the situation was regularized (in her case, at the death of my father). Why were all the generations of Catholic Christians somehow able to accept consequences of sin in a situation of divorce/remarriage without decree of nullity all that time, and yet somehow today’s Catholics are unable?

 

[ctb95]

This whole conflict about Amoris Laetitia have left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Things do change and the Church changes what can be changed to suit the needs of the present generation. Obviously the Church does not change doctrine, but Her pastoral practices and systems adapt.

But Father, is not the teaching that those who are in a situation where they are divorced/remarried without a decree of nullity are in objective mortal sin, and that those in a permanent state of said mortal sin cannot receive the Eucharist until they are no longer in sin?

For centuries, the means to stop the permanent state of adultery the above cases entail was for the couple to abstain from marital relations if they could not separate due to care of children, and to pursue a decree of nullity.

The answer was NOT to stop the permanent state of adultery by saying that the relations were no longer a sin, provided the couple had determined their marriage was a true marriage, without pursuing the decree of nullity.

This generation is full of stubborn "independent individuals’ who wish to answer to no one and nothing that they do not ‘choose’. The answer IMO is not to cater to ‘where they are now’ but to help them to get to ‘where they should be’, and that means letting them know that where they are is NOT where they should be.

 

[gilliam]

This whole conflict about Amoris Laetitia have left a bad taste in my mouth.

Read the interview in the OP, it gives good insight into what is happening.

 

[gilliam]

I wish people would stop labelling themselves, or getting tagged as “papal confidant”. I have seen a number of persons labelled as “papal confidant”, invariably they write books or get written up in articles, always with a picture of them and the pope together. Back in the 1990s ****lots ****of people claimed to be FOB (Friends of Bill Clinton), which got them lots of money and media access. I think the total ran into the hundreds of FOBs.

How many papal confidants are there? 10, or 50, or what? Is a “papal confidant” .

In this case, he is

 

[_Abyssinia]

Robert Spaemann, a friend of Benedict XVI, said the cardinals had chosen the right course and wishes more would join them

The German philosopher Robert Spaemann has supported the four cardinals’ request for clarification of Amoris Laetitia, and said it is “regrettable” that more cardinals have not joined them.

Spaemann, a friend of Benedict XVI and one of the most distinguished Catholic intellectuals in Europe, told the Italian newspaper La Nova Bussola: “The cardinals have taken the correct road.” He says that cardinals have a duty to support the Church, which they are fulfilling by making the request.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/05/four-cardinals-have-taken-the-correct-road-says-leading-german-philosopher/

 

[Stat_Crux]

Interviewer: The cardinals want to know whether Amoris Laetitia ever makes possible absolution and Holy Communion for people who are still validly married but having sexual relations with another. They claim that hasn’t been made clear.

Fr Spadaro: I think that the answer to that has been given, and clearly. When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.

In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt - particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.

In such cases Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to Reconciliation and to the Eucharist, which in turn dispose a person to continuing to mature and grow, fortified by grace.

Serious question from a recent convert: How am I, as a convert, to reconcile Fr Spadaro’s opinion that we can now (after Amoris Laetitia, but not before) knowingly and repeatedly commit acts of mortal sin in having sexual relations with someone outside of the bonds of a valid Sacramental Marriage with the explicit prohibition both in Pope St John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84, the constant historic teaching of the Church since the beginning that sex outside of marriage was never justifiable, and the words of Christ in the Bible about the sin of adultery? How am I, as a simple Catholic, to reconcile this to what I was taught in RCIA?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but this is the question that nobody (neither Pope, Cardinal, Bishop or Priest) seems to be able to explain to me. The four Cardinals are unfairly attacked by Fr Spadaro in this interview, I am one of those Catholics who is experiencing the “disorientation and confusion” that they speak of and am one of those that the four Cardinals are trying to help. While I can understand that Fr Spadaro doesn’t agree with them (which he is entitled to do), I’d expect a little more mercy and pastoral sensitivity from him when he considers those Catholics behind their call for a clarification.

Fr Spadaro’s interview skips over the central question to the debate: whether or not an individual’s subjective conscience can knowingly and repeatedly encourage someone to act contrary to God’s commandments, as consistently taught by the Church until now, and still remain in a state of grace?

 

[Mongo]

This interview gives me a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I think this is an awesome article!

Very clarifying and reassuring.