Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Thomas_White]

Except if the other party is not Catholic, and does not see it as adultery.

In the situation under discussion, it is the perspective of the Catholic that is in question.

The example has been that of a divorced and remarried Catholic who cannot obtain an annulment and knows that for him conjugal relations within the second marriage constitute the sin of adultery. The question is whether he should nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion.

The larger question is as follows: Does AL permit the reception of Holy Communion by a person in the state of mortal sin? Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing that, at least in instances, this ought to be permitted. I am asking how this could be reconciled with Church doctrine.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Except if the other party is not Catholic, and does not see it as adultery.

That slope is more slippery than my driveway right now. Especially if you throw homosexual marriages in that logic.

 

[graciew]

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:

(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.

Ora,let us save energy…
it is useless to discuss AL when AL hasn t been read.
This is a basic. Call it " bookclub" rules.

For the sake of clarity: it is a joke to speak about an Apostolic Exhortation without having read it.
Making noise,that is what it is.
A joke to read a couple of lines at best of a footnote and argue as if we knew the Bible by heart.

As for me,I have read it. However,chapter 4 is the one I am reading again and I specially like it. Taking time though cause I could only use my cell phone to read it for over two weeks.

Thanks Ora! Sorry I interrupted you!!

 

[pnewton]

That doesn’t address the question as to whether or not there are cases when adultery is not a sin. What you are describing is not adultery since there was not a bond.

Adultery is always a sin. The question will always be whether there is adultery and if there is, is it a mortal sin, or is it grave matter, but lacking some other element.

 

[pnewton]

I believe you have it backward. Per the Catechism, and per Father Hardon, MORTAL, Deadly, grave, and serious are synonyms, and ALL are involved in killing the relationship of the Soul to God, unlike venial sin in which a state of grace is maintained.

Nonetheless, they are just adjectives, needing context. Mortal sin kills the relationship with God. However, committing a mortal sin may not, as a mortal sin may not be a mortal sin. See, I used the same word in two different ways. As pointed out earlier there is a danger of partial quoting. The same passage that mentioned they are used as synonyms also said, “each with a slightly different implication.”

Half quotes are useless.

 

[pnewton]

What of the teaching authority of the Church when a person recognizes they are committing the grave sin of adultery but nevertheless is permitted to receive Holy Communion? I do not understand why this would be permitted.

The teaching authority of the Church still remains. However, one must be a student an stop trying to teach the Church.

 

[pnewton]

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

Isaac and Rebecca.

 

[pnewton]

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?

This has been happening already through the annulment process. Besides, your scenario has a basic flaw. God’s mercy is not about revenge or withholding mercy because mercy would make a third party mad. Again, John 21. If God were to allow her to live forever, what is it to you?

 

[KSU]

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

**Subjective culpability without recourse to the internal forum (pastoral discernment), whereby a priest may examine and pronounce upon it, is irrelevant. It’s dispositive of nothing by itself. So, the internal forum is the key to understanding Chapter 8 of A.L. Thus, my constant reference to it. **

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This has been happening already through the annulment process. Besides, your scenario has a basic flaw. God’s mercy is not about revenge or withholding mercy because mercy would make a third party mad. Again, John 21. If God were to allow her to live forever, what is it to you?

My position is not one of withholding mercy for revenge sake.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Isaac and Rebecca.

That is a misrepresentation of marriage. But I suspect you knew that.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Isaac and Rebecca.

This did bring a thought to my head that I can’t believe I didn’t see before.

“Marriage is between one man and one woman”.
This was a societal statement for millinia, evil has attacked the family and marriage. We have lost on the “man and woman” front twofold. 1 with gay marriage, 2 with the actual definitions of male and female.

Now, to attack the other part. The “one” part.

That is part of where this is going.

Back, back to polygamy. Back to the impermanence of marriage. Back to a time of Moses prior to Christ removing divorce because of hardness of heart. Back to before it was a sacrament. It’s not progressive, it’s regressive.

This has been accomplished when the church gave up its authority on one of its sacraments to the state. When the church allowed the requirement of a state certificate to investigate the validity of one of its sacraments. This has intertwined the sacrament with the state version of marriage. Allowing “divorce” and “remarriage”

Until the church is in a position to speak clearly and plainly in this matter there will be a problem. That will happen when the church divorces the state, ironic isn’t it?

 

[pnewton]

That is a misrepresentation of marriage. But I suspect you knew that.

You asked a question. I answered. Don’t ask if you don’t want answers. Mine was a legitimate answer. More to the point, it is data. What happened before Christ is important. We believe we should follow the Ten Commandments, don’t we, except of course the one about honoring the Sabbath. So when we are considering what doctrine is on adultery, as forbidden in the Ten Commandments, then it is important to know what is and is not eternal moral doctrine. For example, when Moses brought down the Ten Commandments from God, he also brought the whole of the law, including the idea of divorce. So what is eternal, and what is not?

It is interesting to think about.

Back, back to polygamy. Back to the impermanence of marriage. Back to a time of Moses prior to Christ removing divorce because of hardness of heart. Back to before it was a sacrament. It’s not progressive, it’s regressive.

I am going to think about this. I have been studying this so long, I like hearing a new thought.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You asked a question. I answered. Don’t ask if you don’t want answers. Mine was a legitimate answer. More to the point, it is data. What happened before Christ is important. We believe we should follow the Ten Commandments, don’t we, except of course the one about honoring the Sabbath. So when we are considering what doctrine is on adultery, as forbidden in the Ten Commandments, then it is important to know what is and is not eternal moral doctrine. For example, when Moses brought down the Ten Commandments from God, he also brought the whole of the law, including the idea of divorce. So what is eternal, and what is not?

It is interesting to think about.

We can now spend the next 1000 posts looking at the evolution of marriage.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t see the refutation. I thought that grave matter can be a mortal sin, venial sin or no sin at all depending on things like whether or not the person has given sufficient reflection and full consent of the will?

What are you, Catholic or something?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That doesn’t address the question as to whether or not there are cases when adultery is not a sin. What you are describing is not adultery since there was not a bond.

Lets be real Tombstone, the poster clearly implies all irregular marriages are adulterous.
Others opine all adulterers are separated from God.
And all those separated from God cannot receive Communion worthily.

Such nonsensical “reasoning” is what Pope Francis has kicked into touch.

 

[Tomdstone]

Lets be real Tombstone, the poster clearly implies all irregular marriages are adulterous.
Others opine all adulterers are separated from God.
And all those separated from God cannot receive Communion worthily.

Such nonsensical “reasoning” is what Pope Francis has kicked into touch.

I was trying to say that there are black and white situations in the real world.

 

[Tomdstone]

What are you, Catholic or something?

I hesitate to put that down since some of my irregular ideas have been annoying to some.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Either way, you have repeatedly been refuted.

If I can succinctly resummarise my position on that thread in one sentence surely you can do the same with your alleged “refutation”? May I repeat my position:

“Grave sin” may include not just “mortal sins” but also venial sins of grave matter and fully non-culpable transgressions of grave matter."

Your turn…

I have no desire to derail this thread with that old one.

Yet you have already so lets finish the job.
I am more interested in a critical discussion on this point rather than a fast hit and run sound byte that doesn’t actually deliver.
And now you attempt to retire without putting your money where your words are .

Nor am I sure why this is off-topic.
Given that a number of contributors here believe all those in irregular relationships are separated from God, and are banned from Communion for that reason, I think its apposite.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Bookcat showed the Church uses serious grave and mortal as synonyms.

Grave matter and grave sin are two different things. In that case it’s the words “matter” and “sin” that distinguish the terms not the word “grave”

(a) Bookcat is not a professional moral theologian as far as I know.
(b) Can you confirm that a venial sin involving grave matter, according to your theology, can never be called a “grave sin” and that the person has not sinned gravely?