Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[OraLabora]

It appear you are at best grasping at straws in an attempt to maintain your untenable position:

Full freedom of the will was mitigated by Original Sin. It is restored only by grace and not (to be necessarily blunt) by a person wishing to engage in adultery.

“Wishing to engage in adultery” is a highly judgmental statement. Are you reading the heart of every divorced and remarried couple, or is this just a personal opinion?

 

[Randolph]

Right:thumbsup:, the issue is a matter of doctrine, not of mere discipline. But because Pope Francis and the entire Catholic universe agree that A.L. can not change doctrine, we are left with the supposition that the change hinted at by A.L. in footnotes must of necessity be one of discipline.

Since the days leading up to the Synod, the bishops of the world and Catholic theologian bloggers, on both sides of the issue, knew that the forthcoming debate would center on this question: Are there situations where non-abstinent people in irregular marriages may receive Communion by a change in discipline without violating doctrine?

So, ever since then in Forum debates I have been using the tactic of narrowing a debate to an examination of the discipline it would require to make the change by means of the internal forum. I do that in order to demonstrate that it can’t be done without violating Church doctrine (in this case dogma).

In short, because after examination, the new powers and authority of the internal forum hinted at by A.L. are shown to require a change in doctrine, the answer to the Synodal question about discipline emboldened above seems to be , “No.”[/QUOTEe]

Well said. Thank you. It seems a change of doctrine is put forth in the footnote section to accommodate those who would not adhere to the doctrine of insolubility of marriage.This change in doctrine disguises itself under the banner of change in discipline. In due course of time, clarity will be achieved. The faithful–cardinals, bishops, priests and the laity–will continue to speak out for clarity and against confusion.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“Wishing to engage in adultery” is a highly judgmental statement. Are you reading the heart of every divorced and remarried couple, or is this just a personal opinion?

Can you cite a case in which a person engaging in sexual relations with someone while being validly married to another is not adultery!?

What this is about to me, is our world today and the absolute inability to fathom not having ones genitals stimulated. It’s so common. Homosexual people are called to chastity but many say how that denies them their right if genital stimulation. Here too we had. A working system of mercy to handle irregular divorced and remarried. But the right if genital stimulation again is seen as unsupressable in the eyes of the church.

While you are astounded at the black and white I am astounded by the 50 shades of grey of sexuality. From masterbation to birth control to marriage to adultery to premarital sex. It degrades mankind to disguise permissiveness as mercy.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I reread what I wrote and it still seems obvious to me that I was speaking about culpability, as I was talking about freedom of the will (culpability, subjective) and not the objective gravity of the sin.

Apologies for perhaps coming into this halfway through (my internet has been broken since the forum thread started), but is the following a fair representation of the position on diminished culpability?

A Catholic marries in the Church, but subsequently civilly divorces and remarries. Children are born from the new civil relationship and are raised in the civil marriage. The Catholic parent subsequently returns to the Church, but cannot obtain a declaration of annulment of the initial Sacramental Marriage. They do however have every intention of observing the disciplines of the Church, but discern that they cannot live as brother and sister because the civil union with the non-Catholic would suffer and so lead the children to emotional or financial harm. They understand that they are engaged in sexual activity outside of their (prior) Sacramental Marriage, but the mitigating circumstances (children) could be seen to diminish the culpability of the objectively grave sin of the action.

This seems to be the classic explanation that is used to explain the rationale behind the “internal forum” from what I’ve read so far. Have I got the example right?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My wife divorces me, marries another man, sleeps with him. The church can now say that she, sitting in the pew in front of me with her hand on another man’s knee, can march right on up and put Christ in her mouth.

How is that mercy?

 

[OraLabora]

My wife divorces me, marries another man, sleeps with him. The church can now say that she, sitting in the pew in front of me with her hand on another man’s knee, can march right on up and put Christ in her mouth.

How is that mercy?

Why is it that folks insist on taking the most extreme examples, and suggesting that Amoris Laetitia’s possible exception to reception of the sacraments extends to those cases as well? There seems to be a rather large gap between what people think AL says, and what it actually says, which suggests it either wasn’t read, or was read superficially. So there is no confusion, this is what AL actually says in cases such as you describe:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. [BA]nother thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”.

228

(my bold)

Clearly the Holy Father is asking for discernment between the extreme of a long-standing stable union and a recent divorce to run off with one’s co-worker.

I repeat, AL is not a “get out of jail free” card. It allows limited exceptions for certain stable, long-standing but imperfect circumstances.

 

[OraLabora]

What this is about to me, is our world today and the absolute inability to fathom not having ones genitals stimulated.

That strikes me as a very crass way of putting it.

I think t’s more charitable to say what people really crave is intimacy, and that the sexual aspect is but one part of that.

People who are looking simply for sexual kicks generally are not those who are knocking at the Church’s door looking to grow in Christ.

But they are not automatons either who can simply flip the switch to “off” for one of nature’s strongest appetites. We are human, with all our imperfections and our desires.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That strikes me as a very crass way of putting it.

I think t’s more charitable to say what people really crave is intimacy, and that the sexual aspect is but one part of that.

People who are looking simply for sexual kicks generally are not those who are knocking at the Church’s door looking to grow in Christ.

But they are not automatons either who can simply flip the switch to “off” for one of nature’s strongest appetites. We are human, with all our imperfections and our desires.

One has to be crass because it is ultimately what is being desired. Intimacy can be had in many ways between homosexuals, and even the divorced and remarried. It’s when the denial of sexual desires outside of a valid marriage is required that people freak out.

Gay people see themselves as married as do a divorced and remarried adulterer. It’s when genital stimulation is asked to be refrained from that people are reduced to robots to thier lusts.

It’s why we can’t even define marriage as between a man and a woman, it’s why we can’t even define man and woman at all! What we needed was something to help marriage, to help the family. What we seem to have us more confusion.

I must admit a sort of anger in reaction to what is going on today. It touches yon my sense of natural law and humanity itself. I’m beginning to doubt my faith.

 

[OraLabora]

In short, because after examination, the new powers and authority of the internal forum hinted at by A.L. are shown to require a change in doctrine, the answer to the Synodal question about discipline emboldened above seems to be , “No.”

Except that the most controversial paragraph of AL does not speak only of the “Internal Forum”. The paragraph in question states:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351

The accompanying footnote goes on to say:

351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

This aspect speaks rather of the subjective nature of culpability, not the Internal Forum.

The Internal Forum is mentioned in the previous paragraph:

Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgmenton what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow.

You shouldn’t therefore limit your analysis to the internal forum but need to also consider subjective culpability, of which AL speaks much more.

So you shouldn’t limit your analysis to the internal forum with regards to establishing nullity, but you need to also consider subjective culpability

 

[Thomas_White]

“Wishing to engage in adultery” is a highly judgmental statement. Are you reading the heart of every divorced and remarried couple, or is this just a personal opinion?

Here is a bit more of your comment to which I replied:

“Even subtly, the Catholic party may feel pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations…”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why is it that folks insist on taking the most extreme examples, and suggesting that Amoris Laetitia’s possible exception to reception of the sacraments extends to those cases as well? There seems to be a rather large gap between what people think AL says, and what it actually says, which suggests it either wasn’t read, or was read superficially. So there is no confusion, this is what AL actually says in cases such as you describe.

I could argue that it is always the “exception” that is being brought up. Gee, what if there are only three people on earth and the validly married couple has a man who is infertile, can’t she just sleep with the fertile one for the procreation of the species!? I mean lot sleep with his daughters, the first siblings had to have done that as well? But but but we Loooooove eachother!
It IS black and white. Christ either meant what he said about marriage, and he meant what he said about the Eucharist or he did not.

But if you really feel that way about the extreme examples the solution is quite simple. And four princes have asked for the solution.

 

[OraLabora]

One has to be crass because it is ultimately what is being desired. Intimacy can be had in many ways between homosexuals, and even the divorced and remarried.

Which would then become near occasions of sin.

We all know where that leads.

We need to ground pastoral action in reality, meet people where they are, and begin to mould them from there.

 

[OraLabora]

I could argue that it is always the “exception” that is being brought up. Gee, what if there are only three people on earth and the validly married couple has a man who is infertile, can’t she just sleep with the fertile one for the procreation of the species!? I mean lot sleep with his daughters, the first siblings had to have done that as well? But but but we Loooooove eachother!
It IS black and white. Christ either meant what he said about marriage, and he meant what he said about the Eucharist or he did not.

But if you really feel that way about the extreme examples the solution is quite simple. And four princes have asked for the solution.

 

[OraLabora]

Here is a bit more of your comment to which I replied:

“Even subtly, the Catholic party may feel pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations…”

And so?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Which would then become near occasions of sin.

We all know where that leads.

We need to ground pastoral action in reality, meet people where they are, and begin to mould them from there.

Moving beyond this for a moment, I actually like in principle what I believe the Holy Father is trying to do here. He is trying to remove the power from the structure of a monolithic Church and disperse that power to a more personal, pastoral and intimate level. The problem is that many many priests are not skilled or equipped to deal with a lot of these personal theological matters. For instance I’ve had priests tell me that ABC is fine. As is masturbation. Both of which I’ve confessed.

But them telling me this in ignorance and misapplied mercy did not help my relationship with God, it his church. And it certainly did not make the Eucharist approachable. It did nothing to reconcile me to a higher more holy self.

I can think of 2 priests locally who probably have a good grasp on the theology behind these things. I can think of at least seven who can barely understand my confession in English. Much less grasp the validity of my marital situation.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We need to ground pastoral action in reality, meet people where they are, and begin to mould them from there.

You are talking of war, but I see no soldiers…

 

[Randolph]

My wife divorces me, marries another man, sleeps with him. The church can now say that she, sitting in the pew in front of me with her hand on another man’s knee, can march right on up and put Christ in her mouth.

How is that mercy?

I am sorry to hear about your very unfortunate circumstance. I have a few close friends at church who have gone through a similar situation. It’s just awful for them. But they place their faith and trust in Christ and in the Church. I have so much respect for them for offering up their suffering and for trusting in prayers. This is their cross they carry for Christ everyday.

Mercy only blossoms when it intrinsically rooted in truth and love. Otherwise, it is just an empty and abused word. Confusion is not merciful. It only breeds contempt and chaos. My prayers and trust are that, in the course of time, clarity will be achieved. I am thankful for the 4 cardinals with great courage to go forth with Dubia. Along with constant prayers of the faithful, the Holy Spirit will ensure that the insolubility of marriage that Christ Himself ordained will be clear to all, and will defeat the forces that weaken it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am sorry to hear about your very unfortunate circumstance. I have a few close friends at church who have gone through a similar situation. It’s just awful for them. But they place their faith and trust in Christ and in the Church. I have so much respect for them for offering up their suffering and for trusting in prayers. This is their cross they carry for Christ everyday.

Mercy only blossoms when it intrinsically rooted in truth and love. Otherwise, it is just an empty and abused word. Confusion is not merciful. It only breeds contempt and chaos. My prayers and trust are that, in the course of time, clarity will be achieved. I am thankful for the 4 cardinals with great courage to go forth with Dubia. Along with constant prayers of the faithful, the Holy Spirit will ensure that the insolubility of marriage that Christ Himself ordained will be clear to all, and will defeat the forces that weaken it.

It’s a hypothetical. I’m happily married thank you very much!

Of course there is no way to know if any of us are validly married…

 

[Tomdstone]

I am sorry to hear about your very unfortunate circumstance.

Me too. It is so sad to hear this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have often thought that this could be a very real possibility in the future - if Pope Francis takes the path of not giving any definitive answers or clarifications about AL, he risks a future Pope, maybe even the next Pope directly after him, clarifying AL himself, and it might not be how Pope Francis would have liked it to be interpreted…

Speaking purely politically and not theologically, it also could have been a huge mistake for someone to come out and discuss the removal of the cardinal status from some. There already is a feeling of removal of a “conservative” group of cardinals from influence. If this is indeed a short pontificate as the pope has said, the group will be silenced until the conclave, this risks a Trumpian pope. ( which I might not mind).

Again, this is just in the context of a secular view of the state of the Vatican and it’s head of state that is selected by representatives.