Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[toddason]

ROME (Jeanne Smits) – As the heart of Rome vibrated on Monday evening, prelates and scholars gathered in a room at the foot of the Basilica of Saint Balbine, a few steps from the Baths of Caracalla. Convened at the invitation of the Lepanto Institute, the private meeting centered around Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has made headlines recently with his outspoken support of the “dubia” published in hopes of clarifying the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Two of the Cardinals who authored that statement were present: Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Brandmüller; and the theme of the meeting was precisely that question. It is a theme which has agitated the Church, in which the supreme authority on earth, the Vicar of Christ, has refused to make clear crucial points concerning the morality of marriage, access to the Eucharist, sin and intrinsically evil acts, and the existence of an immutable truth.

More…

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is very interesting discussion from Assumption College that aired on EWTN’s World Over Live. It features Raymond Arroyo, Archbishop Kurtz, Bishop Robert McManus, Margaret Harper McCarthy and Robert Royale. They talk about Amoris Laetitia and Communion for the divorced and remarried.

youtu.be/STQGwh-lKec

Archbishop Kurtz said, “The footnotes that deal with discernment are vague, there’s no doubt about it”. He also talks about a “penitential Pathway” not being accepted at the Synod or by Pope Francis. Archbishop Kurtz also said the footnotes were “unclear footnotes”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This thread should be renamed the red herring thread.

Grave matter, grave sin, mortal sin, venial sin, culpability, repentant, internal forum, accompaniment, etc., etc. are irrelevant topics that can obfuscate the fact that the Universal Catholic Church never has, does not now and never will permit the reception of Holy Communion by D&R adulterers as defined by God Himself in Matthew 19. Nor was it approved by the Synod Fathers despite the shenanigans meant to obtain such approval.

Sin, culpability and all the rest are red herrings based on the designed ambiguity in Chapter 8 of A.L.

It is as shameful as it is true that Communion has knowingly been given to incontinent D&R Catholics, and that the practice and resulting confusion are now exacerbated by Chapter 8 of A.L.–an otherwise timely, beautifully written, awe inspiring document on marriage well worth reading.

At Mass last evening we heard God ask Adam, “Why did you eat the forbidden fruit.”
“Because the woman gave me to eat of it”, Adam answered."
So God asked Eve,“Why did you do such a thing?”
“The serpent deceived me, and I ate,” she answered.

Type of sin? Degree of culpability? God sorted it out so it’s irrelevant to debate it. The point is they made their bed and were made to sleep in it. Today God still instructs us about forbidden fruit through His unchangeable, exception-less doctrine. As was the case with Adam and Eve, He lets us make our own beds. If we disobey, He’ll sort out the sin and culpability without our help.

The old saying is that the Church thinks in terms of centuries. In this age of instant communication, it won’t take the Holy Spirit that long to correct the problem

KSU when you are Pope critical thinkers may will take this unsubstantiated jumble of adrenalin powered assertions more seriously…until then maybe not so much.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I didn’t know that it was “often enough” a venial sin to have sex with a prostitute or generally outside of the marriage bond. I am not sure why I have a problem with that. I guess it is because I thought it was a grave offense.

Tombstone if your position is so set on such a basic teaching of the Church that you will not consult either the CCC, or care to be consistent with your terminology, or even read posts carefully I don’t know what you hope to gain by posting here .
Perhaps you need to decide whether you want to influence the confused/undecided or simply vent unthinking emotion. If its the former you are fast losing credibility I suggest.
If the latter don’t you think it’s getting a little self indulgent and sollipsistic?

And yes it is a “grave offence” in so far as the objective matter is grave.
It is not a “grave offence” in so far as the sin is not mortal but quite possibly venial.

Was Oedipus mortally sinning?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Because the marriage contract is executed in front of witnesses, marriage in the Church is a community activity. Therefore, the invalidation of such a contract is also a community activity. The community’s judicial process of examining the marriage matter and form is called the annulment process.

The norm of Eucharist exclusion is not a condemnation of the “remarried” but rather a recognition of the need to resolve the irregularity of their situation within the community.

That the annulment process is flawed does not relieve the need for the “remarried” to reconcile their irregularity within the community. Those in the community who judge those in an irregular union will be themselves judged. Pray for them.

Well put.
I suppose then the question becomes one of how much public objective irregularity can the Church tolerate before Communion should be denied.

Private sin of the gravest types is acceptable … for we leave it up to the Communicant themselves to make that decision.

The question then is what degree is publicly acceptable.
We cannot deny that even here some habits of very grave objective matters are actually accepted…so long as the Communicant is a regular Confessee. This only needs to be known to his PP.

So if it is the towns best kept secret that I still frequent a brothel … though not as much as in the past because I am actually penitent and trying to break the old habit … my PP may well continue to give me Communion so long as the more straight laced wives on the PCouncil aren’t aware and don’t gossip and have the Parish as a whole kick up a fuss.

I believe we Catholics have reached a point where irregularity of marriage is now just as common in the Church as in pagan society at large. That doesn’t mean it is right.
But it does reasonably mean that for those who live admirable Christian values in every other respect…these do not give me scandal should Pope Francis give them a way to Communion even outside of the Tribunals should these fail purely on technical grounds. We are no longer living in the 1950s and even 60s, for those who were there to recall, when only a shameless remarried couple dared to come in for Sunday mass.

In the 1980s I was an greeter at a large inner city Church. A group of three obviously “working ladies” would regularly come to Church for Sunday mass. The PP never refused them Communion. Perhaps they were his personal penitents. It was none of my business.
They were fine women, though they used to like teasing me at the door.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.”

Interestingly enough, before Jesus said he did not condemn her, and after, she did** not indicate any resolution to sin no more. Thus the words of Jesus can be interpreted as an exhortation to sin no more, or a prophecy that she was perfect and would never sin again. Either way, the forgiveness was not **based on any resolve that she voiced.

Well observed sir.
This is an excellent observation I had never considered before.

Indeed this is the equivalent of a confession and absolution from Jesus…with no explicit resolution from the penitent that she would never sin that way again.
But they both understood what was in play even if left unspoken and it is clear Jesus felt she was respectful of his person, which in the end is surely all he seeks from any of us who still remain sinners before during and after our Communion. Such mercy only a god could demonstrate, it is beyond our fathoming.

 

[Thomas_White]

This thread should be renamed the red herring thread.

Grave matter, grave sin, mortal sin, venial sin, culpability, repentant, internal forum, accompaniment, etc., etc. are irrelevant topics that can obfuscate the fact that the Universal Catholic Church never has, does not now and never will permit the reception of Holy Communion by D&R adulterers as defined by God Himself in Matthew 19. Nor was it approved by the Synod Fathers despite the shenanigans meant to obtain such approval.

Sin, culpability and all the rest are red herrings based on the designed ambiguity in Chapter 8 of A.L.

It is as shameful as it is true that Communion has knowingly been given to incontinent D&R Catholics, and that the practice and resulting confusion are now exacerbated by Chapter 8 of A.L.–an otherwise timely, beautifully written, awe inspiring document on marriage well worth reading.

At Mass last evening we heard God ask Adam, “Why did you eat the forbidden fruit.”
“Because the woman gave me to eat of it”, Adam answered."
So God asked Eve,“Why did you do such a thing?”
“The serpent deceived me, and I ate,” she answered.

Type of sin? Degree of culpability? God sorted it out so it’s irrelevant to debate it. The point is they made their bed and were made to sleep in it. Today God still instructs us about forbidden fruit through His unchangeable, exception-less doctrine. As was the case with Adam and Eve, He lets us make our own beds. If we disobey, He’ll sort out the sin and culpability without our help.

The old saying is that the Church thinks in terms of centuries. In this age of instant communication, it won’t take the Holy Spirit that long to correct the problem

Very well said. At Mass, our pastor of course also read this passage from Genesis (Gn 3-9-15, 20).

In his homily, the pastor commented that he had through the years heard many, many confessions wherein the pertinent, like Adam and Eve, sought to defer blame for their sins. It would not do, he said. For it was, he added, his obligation to attempt to have the penitent understand and acknowledge their responsibility for their sinful acts.

With trepidity, one wonders if this will remain so.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would suggest we do not know what Jesus knew.

But some of us sure know that Jesus taught all those in still persisting in irregular marriages are clearly destined for hell and may never approach him publicly in Communion because they are too impure .

 

[zz912]

SC you are way below speed re this thread so you will have to excuse us if we decline to go over it again for, what is it now, a 5th? time.

I see you are back to insulting other posters who happen to disagree with you.

You have confused “sins of grave matter” with mortal sins.
For example look up masturbation in the CCC.

Funny, but it says it is intrinsically & gravely disordered, so one of the conditions for mortal sin are met.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an** intrinsically and gravely disordered action**."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

May I ask if you have received any significant Catechetical or moral theology training since leaving secondary school.

And here you are using the argument from authority fallacy to try and intimidate other posters from disagreeing with you. You hold yourself out as a theological expert and attempt to denigrate others who disagree with you.

Sexual sins are often enough venial and therefore not “damning” if by that you mean a complete loss of sanctifying grace.

As noted above, sexual sins are grave matter. So it only requires full knowledge and full consent to be mortal sin. Could you cite the paragraph in the CCC where it says that sins of grave matter are often only venial?

There is a line of thinking today that claims that mortal sins are difficult to accomplish, but this has never been Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

But some of us sure know that Jesus taught all those in still persisting in irregular marriages are clearly destined for hell and may never approach him publicly in Communion because they are too impure .

Strawman arguments are a fallacy and show an inability to argue against your opponents ACTUAL position.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

May I ask if you have received any significant Catechetical or moral theology training since leaving secondary school.
Sexual sins are often enough venial and therefore not “damning” if by that you mean a complete loss of sanctifying grace.

I think you don’t understand what Stat is saying, and he is correct.
A mortal sin ‘damns’ the sinner each and every time until it is repented and forgiven.

You are seeking to apply individual (potential lessening of culpability) to the sins themselves.

It is not that the sins of grave matter become venial, that the grave matter becomes ‘not so grave’. The grave matter stays grave matter. IF the person’s culpability is lessened then it is possible that the objective mortal sin did not have, in the individual, all three conditions met. NOT that the sins are ‘venial’ in and of themselves.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think you don’t understand what Stat is saying, and he is correct.
A mortal sin ‘damns’ the sinner each and every time until it is repented and forgiven.

You are seeking to apply individual (potential lessening of culpability) to the sins themselves.

It is not that the sins of grave matter become venial, that the grave matter becomes ‘not so grave’. The grave matter stays grave matter. IF the person’s culpability is lessened then it is possible that the objective mortal sin did not have, in the individual, all three conditions met. NOT that the sins are ‘venial’ in and of themselves.

Yes. I agree.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But some of us sure know that Jesus taught all those in still persisting in irregular marriages are clearly destined for hell and may never approach him publicly in Communion because they are too impure .

That is NOT what I have said, at least, nor the majority of those who have posted and supported the idea of clarity.

Please stop putting words in people’s mouths. That is neither fair, nor kind.

You have been pretty ‘sharp’ with others and very critical of their own ‘critical reading skills’ etc. so finding you obviously not reading posts carefully and making these unsupported assertions is puzzling to me.

 

[JimG]

This is very interesting discussion from Assumption College that aired on EWTN’s World Over Live. It features Raymond Arroyo, Archbishop Kurtz, Bishop Robert McManus, Margaret Harper McCarthy and Robert Royale. They talk about Amoris Laetitia and Communion for the divorced and remarried.

youtu.be/STQGwh-lKec

Archbishop Kurtz said, “The footnotes that deal with discernment are vague, there’s no doubt about it”. He also talks about a “penitential Pathway” not being accepted at the Synod or by Pope Francis. Archbishop Kurtz also said the footnotes were “unclear footnotes”.

If I remember correctly, one of the comments made during this discussion is that the issue of culpability was never a reason for not giving communion to the divorced and civilly remarried without annulment. If that is the case, why would it now be an issue in permitting communion?

 

[KSU]

KSU when you are Pope critical thinkers may will take this unsubstantiated jumble of adrenaline powered assertions more seriously…until then maybe not so much.

Thank you, Blue. Your words are a welcome confirmation that my post must have been spot on.

When I become Pope, I’ll follow up on Pope Benedict XVI’s reported consideration of a smaller but purer church, to remain true to itself.

That will include action against Americanism, in line with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Testem benevolentiae nostrae. Americanism is the movement propagated in the United States in the late nineteenth century which claimed that the Catholic Church should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to the culture of the people. Sound familiar?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Blue Horizon:

I’m not particularly fond of KSU’s approach either, but Tantum Ergo is on the mark. And she tries to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Adultery is always grave matter, always. So is any form of sex outside of marriage, including mastrubation. Whether or not a person has full culpability for a sin doesn’t diminish its intrinsic gravity, only lessens the chances of that person having committed a full and complete mortal sin.

 

[KSU]

Blue Horizon:

I’m not particularly fond of KSU’s approach either, but Tantum Ergo is on the mark. And she tries to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Adultery is always grave matter, always. So is any form of sex outside of marriage, including mastrubation. Whether or not a person has full culpability for a sin doesn’t diminish its intrinsic gravity, only lessens the chances of that person having committed a full and complete mortal sin.

We agree, except that I’m sort of fond of KSU’s “approach” in his post #867. Seems as if Pope Francis has the same approach regarding Adam and Eve’s culpability excuse: zenit.org/articles/angelus-on-the-feast-of-the-immaculate-conception/

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you, Blue. Your words are a welcome confirmation that my post must have been spot on.

When I become Pope, I’ll follow up on Pope Benedict XVI’s reported consideration of a smaller but purer church, to remain true to itself.

That will include action against Americanism, in line with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Testem benevolentiae nostrae. Americanism is the movement propagated in the United States in the late nineteenth century which claimed that the Catholic Church should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to the culture of the people. Sound familiar?

You’ll just get a smaller but equally impure Church. The stain of original sin will always ensure that as individuals, in general, we’ll gradually migrate towards grave disorder. We will just end up becoming, as Francis says, self-referential rather than the instrument of salvation of all mankind.

That’s not why Jesus founded His Church, and is why we will will always necessarily have a messy Church, but never a pure one.

 

[KSU]

You’ll just get a smaller but equally impure Church. The stain of original sin will always ensure that as individuals, in general, we’ll gradually migrate towards grave disorder. We will just end up becoming, as Francis says, self-referential rather than the instrument of salvation of all mankind.

That’s not why Jesus founded His Church, and is why we will will always necessarily have a messy Church, but never a pure one.

Of course; that’s why B XVI said purer Church, not a “pure” Church. Sort of like cleaning house from time to time.

 

[graciew]

Guardini maybe more than any other commentator I’ve ever read expresses the isolation, misunderstanding, and rejection that Christ endures at the hands of human beings.

You know,…how Guardini could reach these depths is something that till today, I cannot understand.
The Lord is a book where Jesus was brought to me in a totally different light. And how would Guardini capture the Lord like this,beyond me.line after line. Amazing .