Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[St_Francis]

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.

The decision is theoretically mutual, but it ultimately rests on the conscience of the person requesting access to the sacraments, not the conscience of the priest.

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.

What is being discussed is 1. couples who are unable to get a decree of nullify, either because they have been refused one or there is a problem requesting one, such as not knowing where the former spouse is, and 2. couples who are *not *trying to live as brother and sister. The example used is one in which one member of the couple wishes to receive Communion, but the other refuses to live continently.

This is no different than anyone receiving confession then communion when trying to fight habitual mortal sins. (Such as pornograohy addiction.)

Don’t shrug about issues involving people’s eternal souls, please.

Up until now, the Vatican has explained that marriage is different because it involves a public sacrament. This is why it needs an “external forum” to render judgements, because it’s public.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t understand your first sentence. It’s not an either-or, it’s a both-and.

Of course it is. I was surprised you didn’t mention the more important sin of separation from God or explain why your mother didn’t accept, in addition to not receiving, eventually abandoning the irregular situation which was causing the “permanent state of mortal sin” as some put it.

The consequence of mortal (mortal, not ‘true’. Both mortal and venial sins are true sins) sin is separation from God.

According to current Canon Law and the official Catechism I believe you will find this formulation ambiguous and even a little anachronistic when applied to the issue under discussion. The preferred and more precise expression I suggest is “a state of grave sin” or better “objective disorder/contradiction”.

The problem is that “state of mortal sin” in the context you use it suggests that the persons involved are without sanctifying grace and this is why they may not go to Communion. This is far from the case for the irregulars Pope Francis speaks of.

Good consciences are confirmed to the teachings of God.

This also is a less than clear understanding of Church teaching on conscience.
It is “correct conscience” that is confirmed by the teachings of God.
One may still be in “good conscience” even if that conscience is erroneous provided one has taken the trouble to inform oneself.

BlueH:
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?

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…

You are right, I was talking primarily about myself. I did recognise and admit the temptation early on and rejected it though I regularly observe not everybody does.
Glad to hear you also mounted this temptation.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

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.

Father, if I seem uncharitable I did not mean to be. I was not categorizing all those in this situation as stubborn (as if no others were); I was categorizing the majority of modern Western society (not simply Catholics) as that way. After all, if the Jews could be a ‘stiff necked people’, certainly ‘stubborn’ can be applied to us as well!

Did you note my post about my own mother? Of all people I know the difficulties of people in this kind of situation. . .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

You miss the point a little.
Tribunals often simply cannot make a decision due to lack of evidence.
Therefore the original marriage rightly remains putatively held unntil such time as the necessary evidence is forthcoming, if ever.

Tribunals often fail to recognise a couple’s true situation before God due to lack of evidence beyond the power of the plaintif to provide.
This is what the Popes lament.

Therefore it may well be the couple is not committing adultery before God, may well be sanctified and would not be formally sacriligious for receiving Communion without an annulment.

They may be somewhat materially disobedient, they may give some scandal if they did not receive anonymously (unlikely given that nobody really knows who has an annulment of not anyways) but sacriligious - I don’t think so.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What worries me about this, even beyond the difficulty it is going to pose to couples in this situation, in elevating their ‘conscience’ to primacy, is this.

So let us say that it becomes clear that the intention behind this is to allow couples in a situation where they can say that their conscience tells them that they are in a valid marriage and thus free to engage in marital relations.

OK, so sex is now permitted without the Church saying that the couple is in a valid marriage. All it takes is the couple’s determination (with the aid of a priest, but not at the priest’s determination) of conscience.

And then come the gay and lesbian couples. “We are legally married by the State, just as those divorced and remarried couples are. Our marriages are not valid according to the Church, but we have determined that ours is a valid union. Therefore, we should be able to receive just as much as these others. Our primacy of conscience declares it and the situations --living in a legal marriage (State) but not a valid marriage (Church) are analogous.”

Considering the tone of elements of both Synods, it seems as though this could have been foreseen. . . .

 

[Tomdstone]

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

More…

The Orthodox church allows divorce and remarriage under certain conditions.

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

While the interview does seem to skip over the central question, it is there to be found. I think for many of us, myself included, the answer is so astonishing that we are sort of in denial. How could this ever be: a person not in the state of grace permitted to receive Holy Communion? Of course there are questions to answer: Why so? Is this practice not a further grave sin?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

Like most married couples they reject that notion.

There are Catholics who reject Church teaching in regards to sex before marriage, contraception and living as brother and sister of they are remarried. It is unfortunate, it is sad, but it’s a reality, and some people change their view over time, they don’t always stay set in rejecting Church teaching.

A side effect of trying to water down Church teaching (and by the way I’m not saying Amoris Laetia is doing this as I am confused how to interpret some aspects of it because different people are interpretating it in different ways), but I’m making a general point about Church teaching and if it were to be watered down, that could turn some people back to the Church but could make others, namely people who’ve actually followed Church teaching through even difficult, trying times, away instead, through doubt and feeling that the Church teaching that they so loved through its consistency, is moving away from that that, and that could up end up having really serious consequences.

 

[KSU]

There are Catholics who reject Church teaching in regards to sex before marriage, contraception and living as brother and sister

And, unfortunately, to some extent that includes Orthodox Catholics:

"December 05, 2016. Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has voiced his admiration for Amoris Laetitia…

" What has undoubtedly smothered and hampered people in the past is the fear that a ‘heavenly father’ somehow dictates human conduct and prescribes human custom. The truth is quite the opposite, and religious leaders are called themselves to remember and in turn to remind that God is life and love and light.

“In Orthodox communions, the faithful can divorce and remarry with the approval of their priests.” catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30120

 

[TMC]

While the interview does seem to skip over the central question, it is there to be found. I think for many of us, myself included, the answer is so astonishing that we are sort of in denial. How could this ever be: a person not in the state of grace permitted to receive Holy Communion? Of course there are questions to answer: Why so? Is this practice not a further grave sin?

I don’t see how the interview skips over the question. It was asked and answered in a relatively forthright way. The problem with your analysis is that you seem to be under the impression that you can make a blanket judgment that people you have never met are not in a state of grace and therefor unworthy to receive the Sacraments due to grave sin. Seems to me that is up to their pastor to determine, together with the individuals involved, which is exactly what AL says.

 

[patricius79]

There are Catholics who reject Church teaching in regards to sex before marriage, contraception and living as brother and sister of they are remarried. It is unfortunate, it is sad, but it’s a reality, and some people change their view over time, they don’t always stay set in rejecting Church teaching.

A side effect of trying to water down Church teaching (and by the way I’m not saying Amoris Laetia is doing this as I am confused how to interpret some aspects of it because different people are interpretating it in different ways), but I’m making a general point about Church teaching and if it were to be watered down, that could turn some people back to the Church but could make others, namely people who’ve actually followed Church teaching through even difficult, trying times, away instead, through doubt and feeling that the Church teaching that they so loved through its consistency, is moving away from that that, and that could up end up having really serious consequences.

Yes, this crisis involving adulterous marriages, and also our other moral crises–such as contraception–should cause us to pray fervently to Jesus through Mary, to pray the Rosary and spread the praying of the Rosary, and do all we can for the salvation of souls.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t see how the interview skips over the question. It was asked and answered in a relatively forthright way. The problem with your analysis is that you seem to be under the impression that you can make a blanket judgment that people you have never met are not in a state of grace and therefor unworthy to receive the Sacraments due to grave sin. Seems to me that is up to their pastor to determine, together with the individuals involved, which is exactly what AL says.

Not at all did I say anything like what you suggest. The question is whether a person in the state of grave sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. How is an attempt to provide what I believe is the answer to the question as it is given in the article a judgment on my part that anyone is in the state of mortal sin?

Again, the question is whether a person in this state ought to be permitted to receive Holy Communion. This is hardly a judgment that anyone is in such a state: That is a question that is not for me to attempt to answer.

Accordingly, could you please explain your own judgment: “You seem to be under the impression that you can make a blanket judgment that people you have never met are not in a state of grace and therefore unworthy to receive the Sacraments due to grave sin.”

Could you further tell us where in AL it is provided that it is required that one’s pastor must participate in this discernment?

 

[graciew]

Could you further tell us where in AL it is provided that it is required that one’s pastor must participate in this discernment?

Yes,Thomas. Page 230,

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t see how the interview skips over the question. It was asked and answered in a relatively forthright way. The problem with your analysis is that you seem to be under the impression that you can make a blanket judgment that people you have never met are not in a state of grace and therefor unworthy to receive the Sacraments due to grave sin. **Seems to me that is up to their pastor to determine, together with the individuals involved, which is exactly what AL says. **.

Regarding marriage issues, until now your bolder statement has not been the case. Except for a possible few in the early Church, marriage, because it is a public sacrament, has always been considered something that must be dealt with in an external forum. AL appears to be making a substantial change, and as noted in the article, it seems that this substantial change is precisely what the Pope intended, or at least approves.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I don’t see how the interview skips over the question. It was asked and answered in a relatively forthright way. The problem with your analysis is that you seem to be under the impression that you can make a blanket judgment that people you have never met are not in a state of grace and therefor unworthy to receive the Sacraments due to grave sin.

Then don’t take his word for it:

"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.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage." Familiaris Consortio Paragraph 84 by Pope Saint John Paull II.

Seems to me that is up to their pastor to determine, together with the individuals involved, which is exactly what AL says.

This is precisely the problem. This isn’t a trivial situation, we are talking about mortal sin in breaking the ten commandments and the salvation of souls. We are talking about one Diocese or Parish continuing to teach based on Scripture that sex outside of marriage is a grave sin, and the Diocese or Parish next door changing the teaching to say that what was once a matter of the life and death of souls is now “not a big deal”. This is precisely why relativism is so dangerous and has been robustly rejected since the beginning. If this is what God wanted all along, why wouldn’t he have said so from the beginning?

Either you’re suggesting the Holy Spirit, which preserves the Church from doctrinal error, has changed its mind after 2000 years, or that the old teaching was wrong all along. The former is absurd, and the latter is simply not Catholic.

 

[Convert_in_99]

What worries me about this, even beyond the difficulty it is going to pose to couples in this situation, in elevating their ‘conscience’ to primacy, is this.

So let us say that it becomes clear that the intention behind this is to allow couples in a situation where they can say that their conscience tells them that they are in a valid marriage and thus free to engage in marital relations.

OK, so sex is now permitted without the Church saying that the couple is in a valid marriage. All it takes is the couple’s determination (with the aid of a priest, but not at the priest’s determination) of conscience.

And then come the gay and lesbian couples. “We are legally married by the State, just as those divorced and remarried couples are. Our marriages are not valid according to the Church, but we have determined that ours is a valid union. Therefore, we should be able to receive just as much as these others. Our primacy of conscience declares it and the situations --living in a legal marriage (State) but not a valid marriage (Church) are analogous.”

Considering the tone of elements of both Synods, it seems as though this could have been foreseen. . . .

Yes this is a consideration.

Maybe I need to re-read AL but I really don’t remember individual conscience being allowed. It seemed pretty clear it was at the discretion of the pastor. But, the problem there could be that some pastors would be better equipped to make these determinations than others according to their extent of various studies, extra trainings and such.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The decision is theoretically mutual, but it ultimately rests on the conscience of the person requesting access to the sacraments, not the conscience of the priest.

What is being discussed is 1. couples who are unable to get a decree of nullify, either because they have been refused one or there is a problem requesting one, such as not knowing where the former spouse is, and 2. couples who are *not *trying to live as brother and sister. The example used is one in which one member of the couple wishes to receive Communion, but the other refuses to live continently.

Don’t shrug about issues involving people’s eternal souls, please.

Up until now, the Vatican has explained that marriage is different because it involves a public sacrament. This is why it needs an “external forum” to render judgements, because it’s public.

I’m not shrugging about issues involving souls.

I still do not see a difference between receiving confession then communion in trying to learn to live chastely and receiving confession then communion in overcoming any other mortal sin. No difference at all in my book.

As I replied to TE, I don’t remember individual conscience being involved. It seemed pretty clearly up to the priest’s determination.

ETA: Just a thought…Would not a spouse with children in this situation who wished to remain chaste, be therefore not guilty if sexual relations were demanded of them (marriage rights.) Would this not be same as continuing marriage relations with a spouse who used contraceptives (against the will of the spouse wishing to be faithful?) This is so the marriage ends not in divorce. Could this be one of the possibilities for an exception? Just considering, my former opinion still stands.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes,Thomas. Page 230,

.

Yes, perhaps I misspoke. What I meant to point out is (unless I and others are mistaken) that while the pastor might be required to participate, the decision of the individual(s) involved in the discernment can supercede any decision by the pastor.

I will look at page 230. Thanks.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Yes,Thomas. Page 230,

I think you have a different printed edition, mine only goes up to page 159 Which paragraph number please?

Discernment generally refers to the priest’s helping the person/couple to discern the will of God in a particular condition, with reference to the Church’s constant teachings and moral norms, based on scripture and tradition as handed down to us from those who came before under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We conform our lives to Christ’s, Christ didn’t conform his life to ours.

We accompany people on the path to conversion and holiness, we do not encourage them to remain in sinful conditions. If we were to do so, our sin would be greater than theirs for our having the power and the knowledge to help them and our deciding not to be merciful and help them. We won’t help somebody to overcome a drug addiction by giving them a free unlimited supply. On the contrary, we then commit the greater sin for encouraging the harm of another.

Sin is easy, holiness is hard. But, with the Grace of God and Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross out of love for us, possible.