Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[OraLabora]

The method, or badly performed individual cases. The method involves the same drugs used in surgeries, so correctly administered, there is no more agony that one encounters during surgery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental

So are the cases where the person is under the same conditions are during surgery also to be considered torture.

They are being used off-label which is problematic in itself, in much higher doses than in surgery, and in a combination rarely used in surgery.

But that’s not the subject of this thread.

 

[pnewton]

Of course Catholics have their times of struggle and we are not perfect, but the divorced and remarried who cannot get an annullment have a particular challenge because of their situation, and are called to live as brother and sister. It’s not impossible for them to do this, there are couples who live as brother and sister. If they will not do that and choose to have a sexual relationship, that is a CHOICE they make, just as it for somebody to use contraception or to look at pornography. In none of these three situations are people forced to engage in things which make them sin. While the Church should call ALL sinners, whatever their sin may be, to change their ways, the Church also can’t support sin and the Church cannnot commit sacrilege by allowing somebody in grave sin to receive Communion.

I think the point is that it might be possible they are not in grave sin. For one thing, it is possible that their current marriage is their first, valid marriage, annulment or no. Second, mortal sin has two elements and canon law focuses exclusively on one element.

Finally, I think many have missed the point that a pastor consulting with an individual in such a situation is in charge of a process of conversion, not a check list for communion. If the person is truly in an adulterous situation, part of that process may be coming to terms with continent living.

 

[Ender]

Nobody is changing doctrine. Doctrine is clear…

This is the point: the doctrines involved are no longer clear. That is precisely why those four cardinals have asked for clarification. Those are doctrinal questions. What do you think is being asked here?*Q2: …does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79…

Q4: …does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81…

Q5: …does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56…*
Ender

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am equating capital punishment with torture.
There have been quite a few cases in recent memory where lethal injections have gone horribly wrong and caused extreme and prolonged suffering before death. If that is not torture, I don’t know what is.

But that is changing the rules. Capital punishment, as we all know, can be morally acceptable to the given legitimate government authority. And ‘lethal injections going wrong’ are not deliberate torture by dictionary definition. The authorities are not saying, “and we sentence this person to have his injection go wrong so that he suffers incredibly before dying”.

See, this is the kind of ‘fuzzy’ thinking (this is not meant to be an insult, honestly!) that causes problems.

I hear the word ‘torture’ and I go with the dictionary. YOU hear the word torture and “well, I think that torture is something else.” And then you expect me to accept your definition simply because “you equate torture with capital punishment”. That is not right. That is not fair. Until we can accept a definition we both agree on, it’s no wonder that people need clarity, or that they argue.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Maybe, but it was in response to a hypothetical question placed by another poster that really has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread.

But that is changing the rules. Capital punishment, as we all know, can be morally acceptable to the given legitimate government authority. And ‘lethal injections going wrong’ are not deliberate torture by dictionary definition. The authorities are not saying, “and we sentence this person to have his injection go wrong so that he suffers incredibly before dying”.

See, this is the kind of ‘fuzzy’ thinking (this is not meant to be an insult, honestly!) that causes problems.

I hear the word ‘torture’ and I go with the dictionary. YOU hear the word torture and “well, I think that torture is something else.” And then you expect me to accept your definition simply because “you equate torture with capital punishment”. That is not right. That is not fair. Until we can accept a definition we both agree on, it’s no wonder that people need clarity, or that they argue.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

it was in response to a hypothetical question placed by another poster that really has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread.

It seems that this thread was taken off topic. Hopefully, a moderator will intervene to help.

 

[patricius79]

What percentage of people, in general, do you think believe this?
The lack of respect for all authority, religious & secular is at an all-time high, I believe. We have become a society who demands perfection from others, yet we let ourselves get a pass. That is just sad, and not at all living the life that we are called to as Christians.
The Holy Father has said the matter is settled. No doctrine has been changed, and that he will not answer the dubium.
You ask if people believe in moral law. My question to you is, why don’t you believe in Church law?

I think that society has largely stopped believing in moral absolutes, and that this has been allowed to excessively influence the Church, the members of which often have no devotion to Mary–which is “intrinsic to Christian worship”-- or belief in Transubstantiation, the source and summit of our faith.

In the case proposed by Brendan, do you believe that the Torture Technician could possibly be allowed to receive Communion, even if he has no intention of giving up his job? I think that is pertinent to the issues raised in the dubia about whether someone who is committing adultery may receive Communion.

As to your question about Church law: I did not know that the Holy Father has said that we should not express the desire to have the dubia answered. Could you provide a link?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Maybe, but it was in response to a hypothetical question placed by another poster that really has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread.

I can see this thread will not last much longer anyway. I think we know why. Once again, my best wishes to Pope Francis, the four cardinals, and all the faithful.

 

[patricius79]

Again, I think failing to read the whole document is a mistake. It makes clear what absolutes apply because they are doctrine.

I can’t read it. Has Pope Francis made it clear, in any context, that those in irregular marriages must abstain from all sexual activity, particularly if they wish to receive Communion? I’m not saying he hasn’t. I’m still just trying to understand from those who have read it, and have followed Francis carefully.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I can’t read it. Has Pope Francis made it clear, in any context, that those in irregular marriages must abstain from all sexual activity, particularly if they wish to receive Communion? I’m not saying he hasn’t. I’m still just trying to understand from those who have read it, and have followed Francis carefully.

You can read it. It’s on the Vatican web site, and it’s available in English, in a PDF file. Be warned, it is 264 pages, but hey, it’s a lot better to take the time to read this than to watch most of the dreck on TV.

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

 

[Brendan]

Maybe, but it was in response to a hypothetical question placed by another poster that really has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread.

I thought we were discussing pastoral responses to complex situations involving grave matter.

My thought experiment certainly qualified.

 

[patricius79]

You can read it. It’s on the Vatican web site, and it’s available in English, in a PDF file. Be warned, it is 264 pages, but hey, it’s a lot better to take the time to read this than to watch most of the dreck on TV.

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

I have a lot of problems, and no TV, either. As you understand it, why are the four Cardinals so concerned about the document?

 

[OraLabora]

I think that society has largely stopped believing in moral absolutes, and that this has been allowed to excessively influence the Church, the members of which often have no devotion to Mary–which is “intrinsic to Christian worship”-- or belief in Transubstantiation, the source and summit of our faith.

In the case proposed by Brendan, do you believe that the Torture Technician could possibly be allowed to receive Communion, even if he has no intention of giving up his job? I think that is pertinent to the issues raised in the dubia about whether someone who is committing adultery may receive Communion.

As to your question about Church law: I did not know that the Holy Father has said that we should not express the desire to have the dubia answered. Could you provide a link?

The analogy was too black-and-white and did not reflect the realities that some D&R folks find themselves in.

A more apt analogy would be for the Torture Tech to feel he needs to keep his job because unemployment is high, there are no jobs in his area, he can barely make ends meet as it is, his wife is ill and needs expensive medical treatments and medication and they have inadequate insurance coverage, he has a handicapped child that benefits from a relatively stable home life, and feels desperate that without the job he would not be able to adequately provide for his family. Moreover he’s a new Catholic, and trying to reconcile his need to care for his family by holding an immoral job, and the moral teachings of his new faith.

That’s a more realistic analogy for the types of messy situations many of the D&R find themselves in.

 

[Brendan]

The analogy was too black-and-white and did not reflect the realities that some D&R folks find themselves in…

What part was too ‘black and white’?

Can you give some examples of situations that might differ from what I presented?

 

[Brendan]

The analogy was too black-and-white and did not reflect the realities that some D&R folks find themselves in.

A more apt analogy would be for the Torture Tech to feel he needs to keep his job because unemployment is high, there are no jobs in his area, he can barely make ends meet as it is, his wife is ill and needs expensive medical treatments and medication and they have inadequate insurance coverage, he has a handicapped child that benefits from a relatively stable home life, and feels desperate that without the job he would not be able to adequately provide for his family. Moreover he’s a new Catholic, and trying to reconcile his need to care for his family by holding an immoral job, and the moral teachings of his new faith.

That’s a more realistic analogy for the types of messy situations many of the D&R find themselves in.

I did have a very common situation listed

If the person recognizes that the Church is correct, but feels they cannot exit their position as Torture Technician, it might be that their spouse is also a Torture Technician and would leave them and their kids if they stopped torturing

That is very analogous of the situation I have heard presented, in that if the person ceases to engage in sex, that their partner will leave them and their kids.

But I am willing to entertain the example that you gave, how should the Church address someone whose only realistic means of employment is torturing others?

Would the moral good of regular employment, and the associated benefits, be sufficient to justify torture?

I would claim, based on Veritas Splendor #79, that the answer would be no. But I am willing to hear arguments from any who would think that continued employment, insurance, domestic stability, ect… would justify the continued commission of torture in the eyes of the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

I did have a very common situation listed

That is very analogous of the situation I have heard presented, in that if the person ceases to engage in sex, that their partner will leave them and their kids.

But I am willing to entertain the example that you gave, how should the Church address someone whose only realistic means of employment is torturing others?

Would the moral good of regular employment, and the associated benefits, be sufficient to justify torture?

I would claim, based on Veritas Splendor #79, that the answer would be no. But I am willing to hear arguments from any who would think that continued employment, insurance, domestic stability, ect… would justify the continued commission of torture in the eyes of the Church.

As it happens I would agree with you that continuing the torture, unless actually threatened with execution for quitting, would not be moral. But between here, and there, has to be a process of enlightenment and strengthening of resolve.

The problem then, becomes how to accompany that person in finding his strength and resolve to quit his job even as he is thrust into the unknown of how to provide for his family.

And my question to you then is: do you see a role for sacramental grace in that process of accompaniment?

Or do you say: “come back when you have found the resolve to quit your job”?

What would be the proper pastoral response?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

As it happens I would agree with you that continuing the torture, unless actually threatened with execution for quitting, would not be moral. But between here, and there, has to be a process of enlightenment and strengthening of resolve.

The problem then, becomes how to accompany that person in finding his strength and resolve to quit his job even as he is thrust into the unknown of how to provide for his family.

And my question to you then is: do you see a role for sacramental grace in that process of accompaniment?

Or do you say: “come back when you have found the resolve to quit your job”?

What would be the proper pastoral response?

Exactly!! This is a question that can only be answered on an individual basis, based on what the confessor and the penitent have discussed. There is no black & white answer, and to think there even could be is the epitome of legalism.
It is no one else’s business and I, for one, would not want to have to explain to our Lord on judgment day, why I stymied the return of one of His sheep because I felt I was right.

 

[asd72]

As it happens I would agree with you that continuing the torture, unless actually threatened with execution for quitting, would not be moral. But between here, and there, has to be a process of enlightenment and strengthening of resolve.

The problem then, becomes how to accompany that person in finding his strength and resolve to quit his job even as he is thrust into the unknown of how to provide for his family.

And my question to you then is: do you see a role for sacramental grace in that process of accompaniment?

Or do you say: “come back when you have found the resolve to quit your job”?

What would be the proper pastoral response?

God doesn’t desert those struggling to find the resolve to repent and turn from sin. He sends actual graces to move someone towards repentance.

I am not denying it is an extremely difficult situation in our day and age where divorce and remarriage is accepted in general society as pretty common place. To come to Catholicism and find the Church does not view your marriage as valid must be incredibly hard to accept.

 

[OraLabora]

I, for one, would not want to have to explain to our Lord on judgment day, why I stymied the return of one of His sheep because I felt I was right.

^This.

I will be held to account for any souls I lead astray on judgement day, because of my own stubbornness in insisting I am right while trying to “fraternally correct” a soul I perceive as in worse shape than mine. If I drive away that soul because of my harshness, I am almost certain I will see him or her jump past me in the line on Judgement Day.

Good idea to always have the parable of the publican and the sinner in mind, as well as the log vs the speck.

 

[kyrie03]

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.

It strikes me though, that perhaps he sees the questions being asked as being “loaded”, that is, any answer is a lose-lose for him. Perhaps he thinks the 4 cardinals are fishing for the answer they want, and it’s not so clear to him what they propose to do if the answer they get isn’t the one they want. Rebel à la SSPX? Lick their wounds and move on? Simply agree to disagree? If they are asking they must have a plan on how to respond to an answer they don’t agree with, a plan which they are keeping close to their chests. Clearly then, the Holy Father thinks answering is fraught with far more risk than not doing so. In other words, he is trying to avoid falling into a trap much as Jesus had to avoid falling into traps sprung on Him.

Having read AL in its entirety though, I have to say that focusing on this one chapter misses the point altogether.

I believe the Holy Father was being deliberately ambiguous in the contentious chapter because that’s how life is in reality, it never really is black-and-white, and objective sin and subjective guilt are different matters. He expects clergy that are near to their parishioners to use their pastoral smarts to sort out difficult situations that cannot always be pigeonholed into neat categories, and he especially seeks to reconcile as many people as possible with the Church.

That in essence, is what his “non-answer” is. He is sending the question back into their courts and expects them to make their own discernments in difficult situations, while remaining close to the souls to which they minister.

Is it common for other Western rite Catholics to pledge to the “person “ of particular popes who happen to live at the time the person is alive? No offense intended, but as Byzantine Catholic, I’m really struggling to comprehend the purpose of such an action Wouldn’t it make more sense to pledge to the Church?

The Holy Spirit protects the Church (not necessarily the pope) from error --I’m not arguing against papal infallibility -it’s authentic, but I don’t see it being used in this instance by Francis. We’ve seen in history, popes can stray from teachings of Church (examples are Pope John XXII who taught that Beatific Vision didn’t take place until after general resurrection and Pope Liberius who sought peace and harmony with Arians by agreeing to exile and excommunication of St Athanasius.)

You seem to be misrepresenting the whole point of the Dubia.
What do you find “rebel a la SSPX” about the concerns voiced by the cardinals?
What “trap” are you suspicious of them attempting to spring on Pope Francis?
What “risk” is there for the pope to use his authoritative voice to put an end to confusion threatening to splinter the barque of Peter?
How is asking for clarification detrimental to helping souls reconcile with the Church?
More to the point……how can Familiaris Consortio and Amoris Laetitia be reconciled – because this strikes me as being primary concern of doubt-number-one, as opposed to possible motivations you seem to see.

When there is confusion about doctrine, isn’t the voice of Peter used as an authority and based on revealed Truths, the very remedy Christ intended for his Church?
If Francis is using his voice of authority - can you explain exactly what he is saying? And how it agrees with what prior authoritative voices in papacy have taught?

*I also interpret that Pope Francis is trying to be pastoral to the poor, sick, and marginalized, to gently lead them into the fulness of the Catholic Church. And I’m not trying to find fault with him. I’m just requesting, as I see the cardinals doing, for him to clear up the confusion for the sake of UNITY in the TRUTH- precisely the reason for which Christ established the papacy.