Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[OraLabora]

Submitting a dubia is a standard part of Church life, and one can hope for the answer they want. But one cannot expect any particular response. The problem here, in my view, is that people are seeking clarity where none exist. Not all issues are black and white, and not all outcomes can be predicted in advance. I believe the Pope is teaching, among other things, that every case must be taken on its own particular terms, and that mercy is not something that can be applied with a cookie cutter.

 

[patricius79]

The sacraments are not a football game. The Church militant is by its very nature messy, as we are all sinners on this pile of rocks. It can in no way be compared to an orderly process like a football game boxed in by rigid rules; it is here to help heal the sick, not affirm the righteous.

The sacraments are the means God uses to endow us with sacramental grace. He also gave her the power to bind and loose, but since the withholding of sacramental grace is in itself a very serious matter, it should not be done lightly, as someone’s soul is at stake. Equally should allowing access to such grace to the unrepentant sinner, not be taken lightly. But however ambiguous one finds Chapter 8, nowhere does it suggest that access be granted to the unrepentant unwilling to undertake a faith walk and a reform of one’s life with Christ. The red herring is that Ch. 8 blows open the doors to the sacraments for anyone, and people should stop acting as if it does. It does no such thing as any careful reading would discern.

We are also not under the yoke of the law, but under the yoke of God: “For my yoke is easy, my burden is light” (Mt. 11:30).

I suggest that looking at laws as an absolute is a rather anglo-saxon way of looking at it. Coming from a more Latin tradition myself (francophone), our view of the law is that sometimes exceptions must be made, as did Jesus Himself when working miracles on the Sabbath. .

Are you saying that the Ten Commandments do not bind always and everywhere?

As far as Chapter 8: the Holy Fathers says that certain persons living in an objective situation of sin may receive the help of the Sacraments.

Do you think that can ever include someone who is psychologically sound and yet has no intention of avoiding sex in their irregular marriage?

 

[OraLabora]

Are you saying that the Ten Commandments do not bind always and everywhere?

As far as Chapter 8: the Holy Fathers says that certain persons living in an objective situation of sin may receive the help of the Sacraments.

Do you think that can ever include someone who is psychologically sound and yet has no intention of avoiding sex in their irregular marriage?

1. You have read into what I said, what I did not say. Adultery is an objective state. Culpability is subjective. The 10 Commandments do not speak of messy re-marriage situations, only the objective sin of adultery.
2. Agree.
3. It is not my discernment to make. It is precisely what the Holy Father is asking: pastorally-engaged clergy should work with people in this situation, through the confessional and perhaps spiritual direction, to find a path forward. Only a pastor with the care of souls entrusted to him can make that discernment. We all, without exception, have our psychological weak points. It is not up to me to comment on what those might be for some hypothetical remarried couple. The Holy Father is only asking that the pastors he entrusts with the care of souls carefully discern each situation.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

1. You have read into what I said, what I did not say. Adultery is an objective state. Culpability is subjective. The 10 Commandments do not speak of messy re-marriage situations, only the objective sin of adultery.
2. Agree.
3. It is not my discernment to make. It is precisely what the Holy Father is asking: pastorally-engaged clergy should work with people in this situation, through the confessional and perhaps spiritual direction, to find a path forward. Only a pastor with the care of souls entrusted to him can make that discernment. We all, without exception, have our psychological weak points. It is not up to me to comment on what those might be for some hypothetical remarried couple. The Holy Father is only asking that the pastors he entrusts with the care of souls carefully discern each situation.

Again, Thank you!!!

The longer this thread gets, the more I do not understand why so many are so confused.

I believe it is because many here, just like the 4 Cardinals, want blanket, cookie-cutter, black & white solutions, to very messy life situations.
Maybe if these Cardinals took the advice that the Pope gave when he was first elected, and got in the fold with their sheep, they would realize that and get to it, instead of pouting because they are not getting their way.

 

[OraLabora]

Again, Thank you!!!

The longer this thread gets, the more I do not understand why so many are so confused.

I agree. Moreover it would appear that the circumstances addressed by Ch. 8 in AL don’t even apply to the vast majority of those posting here.

Why are we so afraid of admitting a few lost sheep to the fold?

We would all do well to remember Jesus’s promise of the Keys. The gates of Hades will not prevail. Have faith folks! He couldn’t have made His promise any clearer! Currently, it is Pope Francis who is entrusted with His keys. I fully have faith that he is a worthy keeper of them, and place my trust into this successor of St. Peter to steer the Church in the rough waters of the 21st century.

 

[TMC]

If a divorced and remarried couple have not or can to get an annulment, and are not living as brother and sister, are engaging in a sexual relationship with their spouse, and don’t have any intention to stop that sexual relationship, is that not a clear situation where they are in mortal sin and should be stopped from receiving Communion?

As I wrote above, if Pope Francis does not respond, based on what Cardinal Burke has said that, “a formal act of correction” could be given.

Pope Francis is not mandated to respond to the dubia, it’s his choice, but what is described above in terms of a correction could happen if Pope Francis does not respond.

It appears that the answer to this question is “no.” As to Cardinal Burke’s threatened actions, I will decline to comment on the relationship between the Pope and these Cardinals.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It appears that the answer to this question is “no.” As to Cardinal Burke’s threatened actions, I will decline to comment on the relationship between the Pope and these Cardinals.

So you don’t believe that is a clear situation where they should be denied Communion? Is that correct? If that is so, can you please expand why you think that?

 

[patricius79]

1. You have read into what I said, what I did not say. Adultery is an objective state. Culpability is subjective. The 10 Commandments do not speak of messy re-marriage situations, only the objective sin of adultery.
2. Agree.
3. It is not my discernment to make. It is precisely what the Holy Father is asking: pastorally-engaged clergy should work with people in this situation, through the confessional and perhaps spiritual direction, to find a path forward. Only a pastor with the care of souls entrusted to him can make that discernment. We all, without exception, have our psychological weak points. It is not up to me to comment on what those might be for some hypothetical remarried couple. The Holy Father is only asking that the pastors he entrusts with the care of souls carefully discern each situation.

I believe the Catechism says that the Ten Commandments bind always and everywhere, and that JPII said that conscience is the application of the law to particular circumstances. I understand that people will try and fail, and that circumstances are complex and unique. But mustn’t people–I mean all people, not just those in irregular marriages,but everyone-- be genuinely trying to keep the all the basic moral laws if they wish to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?

 

[TMC]

So you don’t believe that isn’t a clear situation where they should be denied Communion? Is that correct? If that is so, can you please expand why you think that?

I think that the Pope is teaching that each situation must be evaluated and decided on an individual basis - with an emphasis on mercy.

Does anyone believe that this is not exactly what has been going on for centuries? I know Catholics that have been divorced and remarried. I have no idea if they have received formal annulments. I don’t care - its none of my business. They work that out with their priest, not me. I am sure that pastors have been doing exactly what the Pope is teaching for time immemorial.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think most people would agree with you, at least about the ambiguous part. The problem is that the ambiguity involves the proper application of three sacraments, which cannot be a good thing. The questions go to a matter of truth, which may be extraordinarily difficult to arrive at, but is in fact black-and-white once it is discovered.

Ender

Agreed. Truth is Absolute.

 

[Thomas_White]

It doesn’t trouble me in the least. It is the Holy Father’s prerogative to choose whether to answer or not. As a Benedictine, I have made the pledge to be entirely loyal to the Holy Father in all his endeavours. I did so during the reign of Saint John Paul II, I did it in the reign of Benedict XVI, and I make the same pledge to Francis. He is exercising his authority, and I fully support him in that.

That is well and good; however, many are confused or troubled by the ambiguity of AL. Is it so wrong to ask for a clarification?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that the Pope is teaching that each situation must be evaluated and decided on an individual basis - with an emphasis on mercy.

Does anyone believe that this is not exactly what has been going on for centuries? I know Catholics that have been divorced and remarried. I have no idea if they have received formal annulments. I don’t care - its none of my business. They work that out with their priest, not me. I am sure that pastors have been doing exactly what the Pope is teaching for time immemorial.

Of course people have been consulting with their Priest for a long time but Communion for the divorced and remarried was voted down by a majority at the Synod. This article states similarly. So if that was voted down by a majority, why is there confusion still among some? Why are there different Cardinals saying different things regarding the divorced and remarrried receiving Communion?

 

[patricius79]

Why are we so afraid of admitting a few lost sheep to the fold?
.

I’m a lost sheep myself, so I have no problem with that. Without Our Lady’s help, I would already be in hell.

But if these lost sheep are not willing to try to keep the basics of the moral law, how can they presume to receive Communion?

We’re hearing a lot about sensitivity to those in troubled situations. And that’s very good.

There also needs to be some sensitivity to those who feel like there is much false mercy or apathy about the moral-spiritual crisis of the Church

 

[Oneofthewomen]

ll.

But if these lost sheep are not willing to try to keep the basics of the moral law, how can they presume to receive Communion?

So, I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter, finally.

It is in our human nature to cry “it’s not fair” whenever we see a “perceived” injustice.
That is what I think is happening here.

Sorry to burst any bubbles- but why is this any of our business?

Why should people in the pews know the personal, private business that happens between a couple and their confessor?

Do we have that little faith in our Priests/Pastors/Bishops that we do not think that they will do what is necessary through the law?

Presumption is a very dangerous thing. One could even say they “presume” that anyone who does not “love their neighbor as themselves” should not be receiving. I see a lot of that in all the threads about AL- the presumption that I have the right to know, and to make judgments of what I think. None of us laity has that right, and I would think that we need to get that idea right out of our heads. Unless & until one is in this particular situation- what difference does it make what happens to someone else? It’s all I can do to keep myself on the right path, and it is way above my pay-grade to worry about such things.

 

[OraLabora]

I believe the Catechism says that the Ten Commandments bind always and everywhere, and that JPII said that conscience is the application of the law to particular circumstances. I understand that people will try and fail, and that circumstances are complex and unique. But mustn’t people–I mean all people, not just those in irregular marriages,but everyone-- be genuinely trying to keep the all the basic moral laws if they wish to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?

And what does the Catechism say about another sin of the flesh that is an act of unchastity and thus an extension of the sixth commandment?

See CCC 2352:

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 or even extenuate moral culpability.

The Holy Father alludes to this in paragraph 302 of AL:

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”./QUOTE]

As the above quote says, the Holy Father is leaning on a very solid theological body of teaching when he says that responsibility in remarriage situations may be mitigated.

Clearly we are not talking about people with severe psychological disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but rather ordinary folks challenged in different ways by their circumstances. We are not all equally-abled. Even Saint Benedict says this in his famous Rule, thus relaxing his rule here for some monks, tightening it there for others, according to each’s ability.

I challenge you to build a cogent case as to why divorce and remarriage somehow is an exception to the above.

 

[OraLabora]

So, I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter, finally.

It is in our human nature to cry “it’s not fair” whenever we see a “perceived” injustice.
That is what I think is happening here.

Sorry to burst any bubbles- but why is this any of our business?

Why should people in the pews know the personal, private business that happens between a couple and their confessor?

Do we have that little faith in our Priests/Pastors/Bishops that we do not think that they will do what is necessary through the law?

Presumption is a very dangerous thing. One could even say they “presume” that anyone who does not “love their neighbor as themselves” should not be receiving. I see a lot of that in all the threads about AL- the presumption that I have the right to know, and to make judgments of what I think. None of us laity has that right, and I would think that we need to get that idea right out of our heads. Unless & until one is in this particular situation- what difference does it make what happens to someone else? It’s all I can do to keep myself on the right path, and it is way above my pay-grade to worry about such things.

Bingo! Again!

As you so well put, it’s tough enough to keep myself on the narrow path without worrying about an issue that does not affect me at all.

I was just happy that when I did need mercy on another serious matter, my pastor was more than willing to help me along with encouragement and sacramental grace. He did not say “come back when you’re perfect”. He met me where I was.

 

[patricius79]

So, I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter, finally.

It is in our human nature to cry “it’s not fair” whenever we see a “perceived” injustice.
That is what I think is happening here.

Sorry to burst any bubbles- but why is this any of our business?
.

Or why is it any of your business if people are concerned about relativism and apathy in the Church.

But alll our sins–including adultery, contraception, pride, idolatry, theft, or sacrilegious Communion–affect the whole Church.

If I’m not willing to keep the basics of the moral law, but choose to receive Communion, I am hurting others.

Right now we’re in a major crisis which affects everyone. Very few Catholics, for example, go to Confession or submit themselves to the moral teachings of the Church.

In that context, it’s understandable to me why some Cardinals and pastors want clarification.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I was just happy that when I did need mercy on another serious matter, my pastor was more than willing to help me along with encouragement and sacramental grace. He did not say “come back when you’re perfect”. He met me where I was.

And that my friends, is what MERCY is all about!

 

[patricius79]

As you so well put, it’s tough enough to keep myself on the narrow path without worrying about an issue that does not affect me at all.

I was just happy that when I did need mercy on another serious matter, my pastor was more than willing to help me along with encouragement and sacramental grace. He did not say “come back when you’re perfect”. He met me where I was.

Except that that’s a strawman. We’re not talking about perfection or rigorism at all. We’re simply talking about* trying *to keep the basics of the moral law, and Confessing and trying again when we fail

 

[OraLabora]

Except that that’s a strawman. We’re not talking about perfection or rigorism at all. We’re simply talking about* trying *to keep the basics of the moral law, and Confessing and trying again when we fail

Have I suggested otherwise?

Take note though, of what oneofthewomen said. I would not presume to be in a position to evaluate what that effort would or should involve in individual circumstances.

Again I suggest that we place our trust in what the Holy Father says, and in the ability of his pastors to exercise pastoral discernment in these cases. Only the couples involved and their confessors are in any position to evaluate their efforts to “keep the basics of the moral law”.

I certainly wouldn’t want anyone here to butt in on my confessions, I suggest that charity would demand that we do the same and let this sort itself out at the appropriate pay grade, which happens to be far above anyone’s here, with the exception of the few priests on the forum.