Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[TCEL]

At least he isn’t equivocating. What about couples committing adultery? What if they discern they no longer love their spouses, and in the interest of their conscience, believe they must divorce and remarry in order to align with the truth? After all, wouldn’t that be better for the children, to not live in a home where the parents don’t love each other? I mean, that’s the reality for a lot of kids.

Are those couples free to discern using the internal forum?

A bad taste indeed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith letter actually referenced the situation of a couple not separating because of the children and is viewed a a situation where the couple should be abstinent:

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

Patricius’s concern was how can an irregular couple licitly engage in sexual relations without denying the indissolubility of marriage. This statement is something of an inherent tautology I suppose given that “irregular” already by definition forces the answer.
But logic aside, what does the question mean for all intents and purposes?
For most it’s not about valid membership of the Church but Communion.

We have to be careful not to presume that what is materially illicit to the Church cannot yet be acceptable to God.
This leaves plenty of wiggle room and would suggest the following propositions may be true:
(a) Communion by same is not intrinsically sacrilegious - circumstances have a bearing
(b) Some in a technically illicit situation in fact have no prior bond before God and are therefore not truly committing adultery…and perhaps not even fornication. There seems no intrinsic reason why these sexually active may be allowed to receive if the Tribunal process is reasonably judged by local authority to have failed them.
(C) It is not an unreasonable local pastoral judgement to observe that the stability of some irregular marriages means living as brother and sister is not yet possible. Like any other ongoing state of sin and weakness true ongoing repentance is possible even if the outward state is unlikely to improve in the medium term.
(d) Divorce and remarriage in the Church is no longer the rare state of affairs it was in the 1960s. Most realise the contradiction re teaching is a matter of weakness not malice for those who are in every other way involved parishioners. These are not barred from Communion because we aren’t perfect or strong but because of scandal. The “scandal” that some feel today is likely very different in nature from that guarded against before the 1960s. Our rates of remarriage are little different from the pagans…again suggesting the cause is societal as much as personal choice.

In short the 4 Cardinals are entitled to their prudential judgement to on these matters but when it differs from the Magisterium, and they have been advised of this, then it’s time to let go and support not oppose. As TERGO says, support the process even if it isn’t perfect.

 

[patricius79]

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.
.

Yes, true mercy must be true. We do nobody any favors by approving the breaking of the Ten Commandments.

We need not laxity, but the mercy of Jesus in Mary

CCC 2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

TERGO can you define what you mean by a permanent state of mortal sin and where you have drawn this terminology from. I believe the Church in its new Canon Law and Catechisms has intentionally avoided such ambiguous expressions as once found in the Baltimore Catechism for example.

 

[JimG]

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 think that is the question that is on a lot of people’s minds. A previous marriage was either valid or not. If it was not, let’s clearly make that decision, whether it’s a tribunal decision or a pastoral decision, and that is the reason for allowing communion.

If the former marriage remains valid, the the question of adultery cannot be avoided, nor the question of whether to receive communion while continuing to have sex with someone who is not one’s spouse.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

I think the consequences of true sin are separation from God not being barred from Communion, surely.
For me this situation is not a big deal if we stop worrying about differential treatment according to chacter and circumstances. I have been in a similar situation to your mother for 10 years.
That too was my conscience decision for my circumstances. I accept that those in similar straights can in good conscience come up with a different approach and God will smile lovingly on them too.
Why should I be sad, envious or put out like the older brother because God is generous and free to do what he wishes with those who love him?

 

[Stat_Crux]

Fr Spadaro: Amoris Laetitia is underpinned by a clear objectivity of the good and of truth. The proof of it is in the development of understanding and the commitment to carry out what is for the good of man in via ‘along the way’]. We find ourselves here at the very opposite pole from a situational morality in which the norm is perceived as somehow extrinsic to the act that is carried out.

In situational morality the subject is freed from the objective norm, which is conceived in an abstract fashion, in favor of a pragmatism linked to circumstances. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is right to say that “the truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience” (#1780).

The moral justice of a particular concrete act includes, inseparably, the search for the objective norm which I must apply to the complexity of my case, as well as the virtue of prudence, which disposes us to discern in every circumstance our true good.

It is in function of who I am and the context in which I find myself that prudential judgement seeks, judges, chooses that which seems just and right in a concrete case. “When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking,” as the Catechism (#1777) also says.

Second serious question from a convert: Fr Spadaro starts by saying that Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried is not the application of situation ethics/relativism, which was explicitly condemned both by Pope St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

However, he then goes on to say that moral judgement is a function of who I am and the context, so in other words… the choice we take depends on the person and the situation? Isn’t that exactly the situation ethics he just said he wasn’t using?

I’m no theologian admittedly, but the above could be used to justify any action in the “right” circumstances. What is to stop two people coming up with two totally contradictory “solutions” to a particular problem using the above process? Are they both right? Does the action (sex outside of marriage) even matter if it’s just a question of the process we use to decide which action to take? How are we to effectively communicate this approach to non-Christians in a way which won’t get stuck when reconciling to past teachings? Christ made it abundantly clear that this is all about the salvation of souls, not clever terminology.

Christ said to the woman caught in adultery “go and sin no more” not “carry on, think of the children”.

I mean all due respect to Fr Spadaro, for his priesthood and as a fellow human being, but his argument does not work. If you follow his argument, you quickly arrive at dead-ends and contradictions which cannot be explained away with the moral system he is proposing. This was precisely the reason Pope St John Paull II wrote his encyclical Veritatis Splendor in the first place to present a robust argument of Catholic Moral theology.

Fr Spadaro has honest and honorable intentions in trying to find pastoral solutions, but his interviews with Crux magazine are not infallible teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

You seem to have a faith in Tribunals that not even recent Popes accepted.
They do a good job but it’s still far from perfect for significant worthy cases.

 

[commenter]

The whole idea of having a papal confidant, is that they will be confidential, not talking frequently to the media. My guess is that he does have confidants, who are other than the “friends of the pope” who often appear in the media.

Pope Francis has appointed Cardinal Burke to positions, and a function within the Vatican, but not Father Spadaro. Somehow that point did not get expressed in the article. I have no reason to doubt as to Fr. Spadaro’s qualifications if he were to be appointed to an office by the Pope, but so far he hasn’t been. I am not sure I want to rely on the media to designate his status, or the “authority” of his opinions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think the consequences of true sin are separation from God not being barred from Communion, surely.
For me this situation is not a big deal if we stop worrying about differential treatment according to chacter and circumstances. I have been in a similar situation to your mother for 10 years.
That too was my conscience decision for my circumstances. I accept that those in similar straights can in good conscience come up with a different approach and God will smile lovingly on them too.
Why should I be sad, envious or put out like the older brother because God is generous and free to do what he wishes with those who love him?

I don’t understand your first sentence. It’s not an either-or, it’s a both-and. The consequence of mortal (mortal, not ‘true’. Both mortal and venial sins are true sins) sin is separation from God. PART of that consequence of separation is that the person, not being in a state of grace, should not partake of communion. The fact that perhaps many people do partake of communion not in a state of grace (i.e. in mortal sin) means that people should be helped OUT of mortal sin, not encouraged to ‘take something’ because it supposedly helps them, or on the basis that what is ‘sin for you might not be sin for me’ based on some ‘determination’ by the individual.

Good consciences are confirmed to the teachings of God.

Nobody is saying that you (or anyone) is sad or envious because God is generous. (I know you didn’t mean to come across that way, but that’s a pretty snarky charge to lay at those who are asking for clarification-- implying that we do so out of pettiness and meanness), and also implying that God’s generosity somehow fails to take His known words (we have them in the gospel as well as in teachings all the way up to and through St. John Paul II, which specifically state that couples in this type of irregular situation are to remain abstinent from marital relations where for prudential reasons they cannot separate until or unless a decree of nullity is granted). The fact that bishops are already not just implying, but outright stating, that there ‘might be cases’ where this need NOT be done and the couple present for communion anyway, and that more people should be trying to do this rather than comply with 2000 years of teaching, shows that clarity is desperately needed.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You seem to have a faith in Tribunals that not even recent Popes accepted.
They do a good job but it’s still far from perfect for significant worthy cases.

Again, I do not understand you. I simply stated that even in difficult cases where there is a lack of witnesses, etc. the Tribunals CAN make a decision; that means, there is the capacity for them to do so.

And I ask, what are you saying? Are you saying that Tribunals are not perfect? I believe I said the same thing, which means I do not have a ‘faith in tribunals that not even recent Popes accepted’ (whatever that might mean.) What does that have to do with anything? I believe I made the analogy between courts sitting in murder cases. Have there been cases where an incorrect decision was made? Yes there have been. Does that mean that the courts are so flawed that we can bypass them and decide as individuals whether we are guilty of murder or not? No, it does not.

 

[St_Francis]

I think this is an awesome article!

Very clarifying and reassuring.

I am so glad that this article has clarified the issue for you. Can you explain, then, how it is that we can rely on the conscience of a person involved in an irregular marriage, maybe not even the one divorced, and one other person, who has no evidence but the conscience of the person before him, to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and the soul from consuming the Body and Blood of Our Lord unworthily and thus condemning him/herself?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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?

The annulment process is not possible in all cases and in some cases its possible but an extremely arduous process. Most are looking to have their current marriage recognized as valid and thus be able to receive communion.

What about living as brother and sister?

Like most married couples they reject that notion.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

The problem is that no solution is perfect. Even the so-called Brother/Sister arrangement is problematic at its core. Its a presumed married person “shacked up” with another person and seomtimes with children. And people who don’t know they have Brother/Sister approval could still be scandalized by their reception of communion. They’re still publicly/civilly married to someone other than their presumed valid sacramental spouse.

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.

I actually deal with quite a few people in these situations, I see first hand their heartbreak and longing to be fully part of the Church they love and I find your characterization of them to be rather offensive.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

TERGO can you define what you mean by a permanent state of mortal sin and where you have drawn this terminology from. I believe the Church in its new Canon Law and Catechisms has intentionally avoided such ambiguous expressions as once found in the Baltimore Catechism for example.

I don’t mean this to come off disrespectfully, but I had to LOL at the idea of the Baltimore Catechism using ambiguous expressions as opposed to the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. (though I must hasten to add that I do not, repeat NOT think that either of the latter two contains much in the way of ‘ambiguous expression’ either).

That being said, perhaps if I explain ‘permanent state of mortal sin’ this way it will not be ambiguous. A person who is divorced and remarried without decree of nullity is in objective mortal sin and the permanency of that sin exists so long as the person engages in marital relations until or unless there is a decree of nullity granted for the previous marriage(s) and the union is convalidated or recognized. For example, if the prior spouse dies, there is no need for a decree of nullity, but the current marriage needs to be convalidated. If the prior spouse is alive, then there needs to be a decree of nullity.

Now let’s take it point by point.
A. Person remarries, engages in marital relations. Mortal sin A. This mortal sin is not confessed, so it ‘remains’.
B. Person engages in marital relations, again. Mortal sin B, on top of mortal sin A which has not been confessed.
C. Person wishes to go to confession, having realized the grave (mortal) sin incurred. But tells priest that due to the bonds of marriage as recognized by spouse, along with the marital debt, that he or she is going to be engaging in marital relations when he or she and/or spouse choose. Person cannot be absolved.

The person is living in a permanent state of mortal sin from the first marital relations in the second marriage.

D. Person wishes to go to confession (as above C). Tells priest that he or she will live as brother and sister. Priest absolves, and person is now out of mortal sin.

Now here is the difference.
Let’s suppose that after D, the person is tempted and has relations again. Goes back to priest, confesses, says they will firmly again try to live as brother and sister. Priest absolves.

This I think is what people believe the current guidelines will provide (but frankly, which are already provided for). The person truly is trying to live as brother and sister, mostly succeeds, sometimes fails, and the failure can be absolved.

BUT --and this is what needs to be clarified,

E. Scenario: Person presents for confession, knowing Church teaching. Tells priest that he/she does not have a decree of nullity, but truly FEELS that this is a valid marriage and the prior one was not. And because this is a ‘real marriage’, feels that there is no need to live as brother and sister, but to be able to engage in relations freely, and that those relations (despite the person being in a situation where there is no decree of nullity, and despite the fact that throughout history persons in this situation, and even those today who feel that they are sinning, were NOT able to have relations without being in a state of mortal sin) are perfectly fine because the individual’s conscience says they are.

I believe the above is NOT what has been held throughout the history of the Church, from Jesus down through our present age, and that what it amounts to is saying that what is sin for X, or in certain ‘eras’ is not sin for Y, or in certain eras.

And I reject it. Now again, I am NOT saying that this is what Pope Francis has said. I am saying that some already have taken it to be what he said, and that without clarification from him, will continue to say is correct, and that it has, and will continue, to split the Church, which is a terrible thing which I am sure none of us, least of all Pope Francis, wishes to see.

 

[Catholic_Press]

Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has voiced his admiration for Amoris Laetitia, in a column published in the Vatican newspaper, L*'Osservatore Romano*.

More…

 

[Convert_in_99]

I don’t mean this to come off disrespectfully, but I had to LOL at the idea of the Baltimore Catechism using ambiguous expressions as opposed to the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. (though I must hasten to add that I do not, repeat NOT think that either of the latter two contains much in the way of ‘ambiguous expression’ either).

That being said, perhaps if I explain ‘permanent state of mortal sin’ this way it will not be ambiguous. A person who is divorced and remarried without decree of nullity is in objective mortal sin and the permanency of that sin exists so long as the person engages in marital relations until or unless there is a decree of nullity granted for the previous marriage(s) and the union is convalidated or recognized. For example, if the prior spouse dies, there is no need for a decree of nullity, but the current marriage needs to be convalidated. If the prior spouse is alive, then there needs to be a decree of nullity.

Now let’s take it point by point.
A. Person remarries, engages in marital relations. Mortal sin A. This mortal sin is not confessed, so it ‘remains’.
B. Person engages in marital relations, again. Mortal sin B, on top of mortal sin A which has not been confessed.
C. Person wishes to go to confession, having realized the grave (mortal) sin incurred. But tells priest that due to the bonds of marriage as recognized by spouse, along with the marital debt, that he or she is going to be engaging in marital relations when he or she and/or spouse choose. Person cannot be absolved.

The person is living in a permanent state of mortal sin from the first marital relations in the second marriage.

D. Person wishes to go to confession (as above C). Tells priest that he or she will live as brother and sister. Priest absolves, and person is now out of mortal sin.

Now here is the difference.
Let’s suppose that after D, the person is tempted and has relations again. Goes back to priest, confesses, says they will firmly again try to live as brother and sister. Priest absolves.

This I think is what people believe the current guidelines will provide (but frankly, which are already provided for). The person truly is trying to live as brother and sister, mostly succeeds, sometimes fails, and the failure can be absolved.

BUT --and this is what needs to be clarified,

E. Scenario: Person presents for confession, knowing Church teaching. Tells priest that he/she does not have a decree of nullity, but truly FEELS that this is a valid marriage and the prior one was not. And because this is a ‘real marriage’, feels that there is no need to live as brother and sister, but to be able to engage in relations freely, and that those relations (despite the person being in a situation where there is no decree of nullity, and despite the fact that throughout history persons in this situation, and even those today who feel that they are sinning, were NOT able to have relations without being in a state of mortal sin) are perfectly fine because the individual’s conscience says they are.

I believe the above is NOT what has been held throughout the history of the Church, from Jesus down through our present age, and that what it amounts to is saying that what is sin for X, or in certain ‘eras’ is not sin for Y, or in certain eras.

And I reject it. Now again, I am NOT saying that this is what Pope Francis has said. I am saying that some already have taken it to be what he said, and that without clarification from him, will continue to say is correct, and that it has, and will continue, to split the Church, which is a terrible thing which I am sure none of us, least of all Pope Francis, wishes to see.

Right. Agree.

Your last paragraph is well put!

 

[Convert_in_99]

I am so glad that this article has clarified the issue for you. Can you explain, then, how it is that we can rely on the conscience of a person involved in an irregular marriage, maybe not even the one divorced, and one other person, who has no evidence but the conscience of the person before him, to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and the soul from consuming the Body and Blood of Our Lord unworthily and thus condemning him/herself?

I was of the opinion (in the original AL document) that the conscience and resulting decision was of the clergy not the couple. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t see what is wrong with a couple who is actively trying for annulment/convalidation and at least trying to live in chasity as (brother/sister) to recieve confession first if they fall into sin and then communion after confession. This is no different than anyone receiving confession then communion when trying to fight habitual mortal sins. (Such as pornograohy addiction.)

 

[KSU]

Hi, Blue. The arguments and rebuttals posted here have been examined and turned inside out prior to, during and since Cardinal Kasper’s Synodal proposal regarding Communion for people in irregular marriages. Throughout, both camps have agreed that doctrine (actually dogma) has not and can not change, which leaves only the question of whether Church discipline has been changed by Pope Francis.

So, no matter how it’s sliced, what you and a few others on the CAF threads argue is that A.L. changed Church discipline to permit a priest in the internal forum to substitute his judgement for that of a Marriage Tribunal.

But, he who says A must say B: If you say Communion can now be possible as a result of accompaniment in the internal forum, you must then say the relevant contrary discipline–all related teachings, definitions (e.g., grave sin) and Cannon Law have been changed.

It is beyond belief–in fact it’s less than charitable–even to imply that Pope Francis intended to authoritatively make those changes as Head of the Church, but refuses to say so. Apparently, that’s why neither you nor anyone else on your side of the debate has claimed that that’s what the Holy Father has done to Church administration and good order.

Finally, your quote gets down to brass tacks, viz:

Why should I be sad, envious or put out like the older brother because God is generous and free to do what he wishes with those who love him?

In short, the argument devolves into one based not on dogma or discipline, but on the fact that God can do what He wants to. Remember the saying: “My karma ran over my dogma” ?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

In an exclusive interview with Crux, Jesuit papal confidant and director of the journal La Civiltà Cattolica, Father Antonio Spadaro SJ, takes issue with the tone and tactics of social media critiques of the pope and directly responds to the four cardinals who have publicly criticized Amoris Laetitia

cruxnow.com/interviews/2016/12/04/jesuit-close-pope-says-many-attacks-amoris-result-bad-spirit/

I was going to quote some sections but decided that one really needs to read it all.

A breath of fresh air in a usually contentious climate! Thank you for sharing the article.