Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

This is the critical question. The question I have asked on this thread is more limited: “Should a person in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion?”

The question is straightforward. It requires a “yes” or “no” answer. However, I sense a reluctance by some to answer the question.

It is not a straight forward question.
I am not sure you understand the difference between a state of mortal sin and an act of mortal sin…
.
According to the old terminology one may enter a state by ways other than “commission” of a serious personal sin. For example, deceased unbaptised babies are in a serious state of sin
through no personal fault or free choice. This is called by way of “contract-ion”. Passive infection if you will.

We should treat some of the irregularly remarried with at least the same degree of compassion and theological understanding. And more so, for at least with these we know with certainty that sanctifying grace could be present and that their “mortal state” is more juridical than real. Like the juridical state of Excommunication.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How can this question still be considered open to interpretation?* 1650 If the divorced are remarried civilly*, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.
Has this part of the catechism been revoked? Is this doctrine changed?

Ender

Where does it say Communion is refused because their soul is damned,without further intervention by God, to the eternal flames where the fire is not extinguished and the worm dieth not?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think AL answered the question from a level of authority far above anyone’s here.

Obviously some people don’t like the answer. I don’t see that one’s faith should depend on it if not directly affected by chapter 8 of AL.

Bump.

 

[graciew]

Ah, yes, but why say so when all ye gave Ender was a slogan which ye wrapped up all nicely for him to stick under his tree?

Because I ran out of battery when I was going to add in good faith. And the telephone rang for a political I do not know what. And I assumed Ender would take it well.
At peace now?
We have had long talks with Ender,and have different perspectives and yet we have never pulled each other anyway,at least that I can think of.
That is why I invited Ender. There isn’ t in my mind any animosity.
We aren t Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis whom I have the least intention to touch.
Just Ender and graciew.
Your welcome,no need for invitation! Just good faith.

 

[pnewton]

Ah, yes, but why say so when all ye gave Ender was a slogan which ye wrapped up all nicely for him to stick under his tree?

FYI, it was not just a slogan. It is a rather dynamic paraphrase of

“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.”

Yet what we have seen here is this insistence of using a classification system, a decision tree, to bounce people in and place them where they end up. It is a legitimate point to use a slogan to answer a continuing effort, not just to pidgeon-hole, but to make the categories even more rigid than the Church ever did. When two yes/no questions are used to put every one in one of four categories, yes, it is time to listen to the Pope and put aside the boxes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…So understanding this bond, in a situation where a couple was staying together to raise and care for children, how could one person choose celibacy unilaterally without destroying that which subjectively is the one flesh of marriage? Is it moral to sacrifice the welfare of the children? In such a case, it would seem that the best thing to do is simply not receive communion, but understand, the person doing so may not be in mortal sin.
.

I assume you speak of the requirement to live as brother and sister to receive Communion.
I believe your position is reasonable. While JPII disagrees I am growing more convinced over time this is a prudential issue and good men may disagree over the teaching which is therefore likely disciplinary.

In AL it is clear Pope Francis sees room for debate on this issue, and indeed has signalled the need to do so by his footnote.

 

[OraLabora]

I believe your position is reasonable. While JPII disagrees I am growing more convinced over time this is a prudential issue and good men may disagree over the teaching which is therefore likely disciplinary.

In AL it is clear Pope Francis sees room for debate on this issue, and indeed has signalled the need to do so by his footnote.

And that, I think, is why he will not answer the dubia, at least in public. He wants, and feels the need, for that debate to take place. By providing a yes or no answer, he would effectively be shutting down that debate.

For people who crave clarity, it will unfortunately mean being patient and seeing how things shake down. Pope Francis specifically states in AL that he understands the position of those who seek clarity but then goes on to lay out his arguments against.

AL is very much the starting point, and not the end point, of the debate, which again is why I suspect the Holy Father will not answer the dubia.

I for one am at peace with that, and I pray for those who aren’t.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Please read AL, I fully accept the situations and reasons Pope Francis supplies.
C. Burke not so much it seems.
It’s really not my business or yours anways.
And even those whose business it is cannot know with certainty the sanctification or not of a single soul.
All our priests can do, and are expected to do, is judge if a person’s outward public conduct and personal disposition contradicts the stated Canonical norms for public worthiness to receive Communion. The grave outward public conduct (called grave sin in Canons 915 and 916) that attracts such judgement is a matter of custom and tradition and has varied over time.
For example, at one stage it was apparently ruled that women over 60 who remarried were barred from Communion - it seems on the grounds of obvious obstinate and manifest demonstration of the grave sin of lust.
I am glad we changed that one.
I am also at peace with the changes Pope Francis and other loyal Cardinals are introducing re those failed by the Tribunals.

Please give the source and citation for “at one stage it was apparently ruled that women over 60 who remarried were barred from Communion --it seems on the grounds of obvious obstinent and manifest demonstration of the grave sin of lust.”

At one stage where? By whom? How long? Was that the real determination or your interpretation of it?

 

[Thomas_White]

It is not a straight forward question.
I am not sure you understand the difference between a state of mortal sin and an act of mortal sin…

This is not difficult: An act of mortal sin results in a state of mortal sin.
.

According to the old terminology one may enter a state by ways other than “commission” of a serious personal sin. For example, deceased unbaptised babies are in a serious state of sin through no personal fault or free choice. This is called by way of “contract-ion”. Passive infection if you will.

It is not correct that non-baptized infants were ever considered by the Church to be in the state of sin, mortal or otherwise. No blame was attached, and historically such infants were considered to be in Limbo. The Church now takes no position on the matter.

We should treat some of the irregularly remarried with at least the same degree of compassion and theological understanding. And more so, for at least with these we know with certainty that sanctifying grace could be present and that their “mortal state” is more juridical than real. Like the juridical state of Excommunication.

For this comment, I will reframe the question: Is a person who commits the mortal sin of adultery therefore in the state of mortal sin and, as such, should he nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

The reluctance of some to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question concerning Church doctrine is again noted.

 

[OraLabora]

This is not difficult: An act of mortal sin results in a state of mortal sin.
.

It is not correct that non-baptized infants were ever considered by the Church to be in the state of sin, mortal or otherwise. No blame was attached, and historically such infants were considered to be in Limbo. The Church now takes no position on the matter.

For this comment, I will reframe the question: Is a person who commits the mortal sin of adultery therefore in the state of mortal sin and, as such, should he nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

The reluctance of some to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question concerning Church doctrine is again noted.

We cannot provide a yes or no answer because adultery, like any grave sin, may have lessened and perhaps even venial culpability. The Holy Father explains this clearly in AL. Have you read it?

That said, the place to assess the level of culpability is not in hypothetical or even real cases on an Internet forum. It is to be determined for real-life cases, in the confessional. The Holy Father clearly states in AL that life is too complex to be able propose solutions for every possible case. It requires a direct encounter with a priest. And to get there usually involves some sort of encounter with the living God, as happens when most of us first encounter our smallness and admit we need Him.

The kind of people I’m guessing may be found able to receive communion aren’t asking to in order to belong to some exclusive club. They are asking to in order to enter into a closer relationship with Him, and receive the strengthening of His sacramental grace.

 

[pnewton]

This is not difficult: An act of mortal sin results in a state of mortal sin.

I do not know that I can agree with this, unless your definition of “state of mortal sin” is not the same state that leaves us spiritual dead and unable to receive communion. From Amoris Laetitia.

The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer
simply be said that all those in any “irregular”
situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace.

 

[pnewton]

I assume you speak of the requirement to live as brother and sister to receive Communion.
I believe your position is reasonable. While JPII disagrees I am growing more convinced over time this is a prudential issue and good men may disagree over the teaching which is therefore likely disciplinary.

I do not like using the word “prudential” when the Pope speaks, but that’s just me. John Paul II laid down the law, so to speak, even though he used the word “practice” in describing it. I find it note worthy that Pope Benedict then stated that more reflection was needed on this problem. Pope Francis did not come out of left field with his exhortation.

 

[pnewton]

The Holy Father explains this clearly in AL. Have you read it?

I like the book club analogy earlier. I get the distinct impression that some have not read it yet still have “strong opinions” about it.

 

[TMC]

This is not difficult: An act of mortal sin results in a state of mortal sin.
.

It is not correct that non-baptized infants were ever considered by the Church to be in the state of sin, mortal or otherwise. No blame was attached, and historically such infants were considered to be in Limbo. The Church now takes no position on the matter.

For this comment, I will reframe the question: Is a person who commits the mortal sin of adultery therefore in the state of mortal sin and, as such, should he nevertheless be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

The reluctance of some to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question concerning Church doctrine is again noted.

You keep framing the issue this way, and keep rejecting the answer. The answer is that the real question is whether they are committing the sin of adultery, and we are often not in a place to make that judgment. Many in what some may call irregular situations do not believe that having sex with their loving and committed spouse of many years is adultery (or any other sin). Whether they are committing the sin of adultery or not is not up for public comment - it is something for them to work out with their priest, pastor and confessor.

Why do so many of these threads come down at the end to “concerns” about other people’s sex lives? No wonder so many people think that is the only thing Catholics care about.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

Just reviewing the last few pages of the thread it seems like this has been said multiple times to be the critical question. Which is also a critical (and IMO positive) development in this conversation, since ISTM it shifts the underlying issue from being “how is this not a change of doctrine?” to either “who could this apply to?” or “why should there be a change?”

And I honestly think the answer to both the latter two questions are quite simple:

“Who could this apply to?” Why should that concern me? It should be between a priest and the individual. “But won’t it be something easily abused which in effect enables unrepented sin?” Like many things perhaps some people will abuse it, but overall I trust our priests to do the right thing, as well as those seeking guidance.

“Why should there be a change?” That is something that ultimately is above anybody’s paygrade here on this forum.

 

[KSU]

Under what circumstance do you suppose that someone could be sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried and yet in a state of grace sufficient to receive Holy Communion without endangering their immortal soul?

As has been widely reported and discussed, during the Synod Pope Francis said to Archbishop Bruno Forte (the personally chosen Special Secretary to the Synod) : “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

True to his word, Pope Francis then issued Amoris Laetitia without answering the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried, and made reference to it only in the ambiguous-by-design footnote 351–about which the Pope later told a reporter, “I don’t remember the footnote…”

Accordingly, because Our Lord did not leave us orphans to play guessing games about His commandments, the answer to your question, we are told, is to read A.L. in the light of previous magisterial pronouncements such as Veritatis Splendor, Casti Connubi and Familiaris Consortio. The later states:
…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.

In short, what was not licit before A.L. is not licit today, i.e., there is no new definition of sin or types of sin or adultery or, therefore, of who can licitly receive Communion. Pope Francis would be the first to tell us that.

IMHO, what he wants to accomplish through A.L. is (1) a heightened emphasis on mitigating today’s crises of the family by accompaniment of those in irregular marriages/cohabiting couples so that they can discover the peace, fertility and joy God grants his children through valid marriage; (2) a discovery in the internal forum of those cases where people did not realize they can take steps to bring themselves into compliance with Church teaching and thus receive Communion; and (3) an awareness by those who can not receive that they nevertheless have a shoulder in the Church to lean upon.

Ironic, that a Pope with so-called liberal leanings (which are brought about by his closeness to those who suffer) is actually reemphasizing traditional solutions, but has to do so in liberal gift wrap (e.g., footnote 351) to attract and “meet people where they are” in order to solve the crises in the family.

Will the liberal gift wrap end up a plus or a minus? That’s the real question.

 

[billy15]

This is not difficult: An act of mortal sin results in a state of mortal sin.

To the portion I bolded specifically: here’s the thing. I totally agree that one’s culpability can be diminished in any grave matter, including adultery. But a pastor is supposed to lead us in holiness. If a person who is not fully culpable for their adulterous acts in this divorced/remarried situation, is then told by their confessor that such acts are gravely sinful, and IS THEN told by that confessor that they should discern if such adulterous acts should continue and if they can receive the Eucharist… isn’t something wrong there? Even if we grant that the adulterous acts that take place after this talk with the pastor are only venial sins, shouldn’t the pastor be leading this couple to holiness, and tell them to avoid ALL sin not only mortal sin? This reminds me of something Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich wrote, which I’ll post in the next post…

 

[billy15]

I think Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich (who lived in New Jersey in the 20th century) says it best, regarding venial sin in relation to mortal sin, and I think this should be required reading for anyone who shrugs off venial sin. Any kind of sin is a bad thing in God’s eyes:

"We all understand very well that the only sins one need confess and must confess are mortal sins: that mortal sin alone constitutes the necessary matter of confession. The Church has clearly defined, however, that it is a good and useful practice, especially for those who aim at conforming themselves more perfectly to the image of the Creator, to the life of Christ, to resort to this sacrament frequently, even though venial sin be the only subject of accusation…

"Here, then, we have the case of a religious [or, person aspiring to be a saint] who has been going to confession week after week, for many years- five, ten, fifteen, twenty, and as many more as necessary. God has held out to him grace upon grace, and yet in His sight, and even in that of thoughtful men, there is no proportionate increase in virtue; in fact, he seems to be and is in a worse state than at the beginning of his religious life. What is the trouble? The sacrament is of Divine institution; it is God who forgives, who gives the increase of grace; therefore, the trouble must be, and certainly is, with the soul. It is just this: he presents himself week after week before Christ, his Judge, with improper dispositions, which, through force of habit, have virtually become no dispositions at all, and hence not only prevent that outpouring of grace with which Christ wills to flood his soul, but in some cases it may even happen that, as a result of continued deliberate indifference, he may be in a certain measure guilty of sacrilege. And the pity of the trouble is- “It’s only a venial sin.” Only a venial sin! Ah, if we looked at the matter from God’s point of view rather than from our own, we should be forced to say in all truth: “It’s all of a venial sin.” We have no idea of the malice of sin, and therefore we go on our way cheerfully piling up insult after insult to God, and heaping up for ourselves mountains of fuel to be consumed in the weary, slow-burning fire of purgatory. If only we had that clear knowledge of the evil of sin which the saints had…

**"Why are we so indifferent to the great danger and real harm of venial sin? Why? Because as long as we keep out of hell we are satisfied; that is, as long as we know we will not suffer eternally. “It is only a venial sin.” Yes, I am still a friend of God. But just what kind of friend am I? I wonder if it is one He is pleased to acknowledge? Remember his words: “I will not now call you servants… but I have called you friends” (Jn 15: 15). When I deliberately commit a venial sin with the idea, “It’s only a venial sin,” which is the same as saying, “There is no eternal punishment attached,” am I seeking God, or am I seeking myself? Not God, surely. If I were, I would take care not to do anything that would offend Him in the least. **

No, I am seeking myself. I am looking to see just how far I can allow myself forbidden liberties and pleasures, without straining my relations with God to the breaking point, and running the risk of being hurt in punishment for all eternity. I do not like pain. I am afraid of suffering. But just the same, I will indulge myself this once today. I will go just so far in gratifying my eyes, my ears, my tongue, my taste, my mind, my imagination, my temper, but I will go no farther. Just this once today. Tomorrow is the same story. And the day after. only it is more than once, and the number of falls goes on increasing daily. Some day, one of these horses, through our gradually relaxing hold, will break the reins, and rush us madly, much farther than we ever expected or intended to go, down the length of the infernal precipice, to the foul abyss below. And all because “It’s only a venial sin.” Nor is this another exaggeration. History affords us only too many instances. Luther did not become a heretic over night, nor Judas a decide, neither was Peter’s denial the result of momentary weakness. No. All these betrayals had their origin in scarcely perceptible beginnings. And because the shadow of sin was not persistently dispelled, the storm of passion eventually broke in all its fury…

"And this is why the soul that habitually says, “It’s only a venial sin,” cannot have sincere contrition, because of its affection for the evil. If the will embraces the evil, and it certainly does, because it finds repeated delight in it, it cannot at the same time embrace the opposite good, namely, God. It may at the moment of confession try to do so in a irresolute, half-hearted manner. And since it is impossible for a soul, while continuing in this state, to elicit an act of perfect contrition, it’s contrition is thus necessarily imperfect.

“…remember, it is impossible for a soul who makes a constant and proper use of the sacrament of Penance not to advance in perfection… again, the whole question of perfection may be resolved thus: To conform myself to the image of my Beloved, Christ Jesus, I need but to will so to do. That will, however, shall not and cannot rely on its own strength; it can effectively act only through the strengthening power of grace, poured in great abundance on those who seek it in this holy sacrament of penance.”

 

[Nightwolf]

FYI, it was not just a slogan. It is a rather dynamic paraphrase of

My my, ye stand so boldly I do shake within my unpoetic shoes. Yet give me leave, goodman, to timidly oppose ye.

Yet what we have seen here is this insistence of using a classification system, a decision tree, to bounce people in and place them where they end up. It is a legitimate point to use a slogan to answer a continuing effort, not just to pidgeon-hole, but to make the categories even more rigid than the Church ever did. When two yes/no questions are used to put every one in one of four categories, yes, it is time to listen to the Pope and put aside the boxes.

What, my compatriot? At first, ye say ‘’ ‘tis no slogan, for your information,’’ and now I read it is. I suppose, no surprise should this give me, when I speak with those who do not think in boxes.

Lo! I hear the Prophets of Un-Boxing squawking: situations, and mercy, and thinking outside of boxes, and ''did you even read, villain?" And none of them ask the real questions:

What, I ask, is the will of God.
How, I ponder, is it known?

A thing is either of God’s will, or 'tis not. Oh, my dear Euthyphro, I would ask you how you know God’s will were I not confident that I should obtain a slogan in response hurled like dirt at a passing pharisee: ‘‘Vile Nightwolf - he knoweth not how to put away his boxes!’’ But stay, good one, and let a boxy moron instruct thee:

How shall I know the will of God?
From nature, which kills the weak as prey to the strong, before taking the life of the strong when they too grow weak?
From the human person, which acts just as nature does, but consciously?
From slogans born of a stilted sentimentality which often favor nature’s aggressive winners at the expense of nature’s quiet, timid losers?

Nay, sayeth I. The will of God cannot be found in these things, but known only through revelation. How else should I believe that God will the personhood of each, when nature would kill them like it does any other creature, starting with the weak? But oh, Euthyphro my friend, what find we in revelation but that which says that the one who marries a divorced one commits adultery? My brother pharisees, friend, tried your silly slogan on the Lord of Heaven went they pointed out Moses’ bill of divorce: do not think of yourselves as thinking outside of boxes when you have merely recycled (very green-like), a very tired, used-up box.

Now continue to bear with me. I, the terrible box-thinker, have the singular glory of being a small child’s patron. He, friend, was abandoned by heartless, indifferent parents. Tell to me, merciful un-boxer, what could your un-boxing say to him? ‘‘Honey,’’ perhaps it would say, ‘‘it wasn’t their fault that they loved drugs more than you. Their love was defective only because the culpability of their actions was reduced by their addictions. Now, be like the Merciful Father and say that their irregular situation is not so terribly bad.’’ What, ye think this is not a situation-similar? And yet:

Either an action builds up our fellow man, or it does not. Either one follows the will of God, or one does not. But the one and the other have consequences, some long-lasting and chronic - finally deadly. I should like very much to collect each of the slogans which pour from your honeyed lips and throw them upon the weeds in my garden as a pesticide. I have no scruples, mark me, in telling the parents of my dear young patronage that they are living sinful lives which are in disaccord with God’s will, and that they must convert and radically change their living.
No continuum.
No pseudo-psycho babble about culpability so that ye may feel good about favoring my patronage’s parents’ desires over the good of the child wounded by the culture of sin contrary to the will of God which ye are continuing to construct.
No apologies for believing that God’s existence is wildly inconvenient, as Sartre admitted it would be.

Talk to me not about ‘‘categories,’’ there are only realities: God’s will, or sin. This, in married life or in all life. The more marriage is surrendered to cultural convention, the more you side it with the aggressive and the less with the helpless such as my patronage. Very natural, verily; but hardly original thinking.

I’ve brought you a new box: Merry Christmas!

 

[graciew]

AL is very much the starting point, and not the end point, t.

It is the Joy of Love,a journey.
And a starting point yes for a couple and it is in Al what we are supposed to be for them.
Poor couple if we approach them.with all our variables…