Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Don_Ruggero]

Please! Let’s not judge dear Father Ruggero. He freely offers his time and priestly wisdom to us laypeople. He was not attacking you…he was defending the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church. Why is that so hard to see?

I feel I cannot fail to acknowledge your kind intervention that was in my regard. Thank you.

No, a lay person is not equal to a Professor of Theology and Priest, especially when it comes to matters that he would have a much better understanding of, like pastoral care to people in irregular situations.

Well, frankly it is not even a matter that ends there. Was my student, whose thesis I was helping to revise and prepare for a defence, my equal? Most assuredly not. I could not say that and neither, I trust, would the student. If I was, the student needed another Doktorvater!

After years of their work in the academy, lecturing and publishing and working in the field, there were those pupils whom I certainly came to think of as my peers more than my former pupils but that after they attained a stature in the academic life. The process of attaining such a stature is a very very long one…which it is also in earning a stature in a diocesan presbyterate.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I have often read that, as to doctrine, nothing has changed. That must, I think, be true.

Then I hear from other sources, that as to practice, something has changed.

Doctrine and practice are closely related when it comes to marriage. That’s why I hope that it can be clarified how practice can be changed in this instance without implicit change to doctrine.

I think based on my understanding, the doctrine is kind of intertwined with the practice. This article states:

In order for the Church to change its discipline to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, one of three things would have to happen:

• The Church would have to stop presuming that marriages are valid until proven otherwise (Canon 1060).
• The Church would have to stop teaching that people in a state of grave sin shouldn’t receive the Eucharist (Canons 915-16).
• The Church would have to stop teaching that Sacramental absolution requires the resolution to stop sinning and amend one’s life (Canon 987).

If all of this were really just discipline, any or all of it could be changed. The difficulty is that a lot of this discipline expresses doctrine:

• The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t receive the Eucharist comes from Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). It was taught at the Council of Trent (Decree on the Eucharist, Chapter 7), and is reiterated in the Catechism (CCC 1385).
• The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t be absolved without proposing to stop sinning and amend their lives also comes from Scripture (John 8:11). It was taught at the Council of Trent (Decree on Penance, Chapter 4), and is reiterated in the Catechism (CCC 1451).

That leaves us with the presumption that marriages are valid unless proven otherwise.

crisismagazine.com/2014/discipline-changes-doctrine-debate-heart-synod

 

[irenaeus1]

Please! Let’s not judge dear Father Ruggero. He freely offers his time and priestly wisdom to us laypeople. He was not attacking you…he was defending the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church. Why is that so hard to see?

It was an ad hominem argument nonetheless.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I feel I cannot fail to acknowledge your kind intervention that was in my regard. Thank you.

No problem! I’m just sorry you are met with disrespect so frequently here.

 

[irenaeus1]

I think based on my understanding, the doctrine is kind of intertwined with the practice. This article states:

In order for the Church to change its discipline to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, one of three things would have to happen:

I have heard similar arguments as well. What is so difficult that would preclude a clarification from the Holy See?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

No problem! I’m just sorry you are met with disrespect so frequently here.

You are very kind. The expression of such sentiments is certainly appreciated.

Frankly the comments directed at me really do not disturb me because they have no foundation to rest upon. What is disturbing in this forum that is graciously allowed the name Catholic Answers, for me as a priest, is what I see published by certain people concerning the Pope or other ecclesiastics who are beyond criticism…that reflects very badly on both the writer who would have the temerity to write it as well as on that which would host it.

 

[irenaeus1]

You are very kind. The expression of such sentiments is certainly appreciated.

Frankly the comments directed at me really do not disturb me because they have no foundation to rest upon. What is disturbing in this forum that is graciously allowed the name Catholic Answers, for me as a priest, is what I see published by certain people concerning the Pope or other ecclesiastics who are beyond criticism…that reflects very badly on both the writer who would have the temerity to write it as well as on that which would host it.

I believe that the responses by some were addressing the content of your argument or statement; they were not directed at you personally. And what I find more disturbing is what I see published by certain people concerning the four cardinals who are beyond criticism. Recall that the four cardinals have publicly been called heretics, witless worms, psychologically born with something missing, etc., simply for requesting clarification on Church teaching that will help in understanding the differing conflicting interpretations being promoted regarding AL.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And what I find more disturbing is what I see published by certain people concerning the four cardinals who are beyond criticism.

The Pope alone is beyond all reach. Having supreme and full jurisdiction, there is nothing else left which he does not himself hold.

The Cardinals, properly, are beyond the critiquing of everyone of lesser dignity and stature than they. It is indeed wrong for those hierarchically beneath them to judge or impugn them.

However, of course, the Cardinals exist beneath and under the authority of the Successor of Peter – to whom they owe obedience and submission.

The judgment of Cardinals and Cardinals petitions is solely and exclusively the domain of the Pope. If His Holiness finds the petition without merit…then the petition is without merit.

 

[asd72]

The Pope alone is beyond all reach. Having supreme and full jurisdiction, there is nothing else left which he does not himself hold.

The Cardinals, properly, are beyond the critiquing of everyone of lesser dignity and stature than they. It is indeed wrong for those hierarchically beneath them to judge or impugn them.

However, of course, the Cardinals exist beneath and under the authority of the Successor of Peter – to whom they owe obedience and submission.

The judgment of Cardinals and Cardinals petitions is solely and exclusively the domain of the Pope. If His Holiness finds the petition without merit…then the petition is without merit.

What I have seen quoted from Cardinal Burke is that “in a case of conflict between a Pope and Church Tradition, the Tradition is binding. Ecclesial authority only exists in service of the Tradition.”

That makes sense to me. Which is why if they don’t receive clarification, it sounds like they will take the next step of a ‘formal act of correction.’

Cardinal Burke certainly sounds like he believes it is charitable to the Pope to seek this clarification and his duty as a Cardinal to speak up, and I for one are thankful.

 

[carn]

If His Holiness finds the petition without merit…then the petition is without merit.

False insofar as lack of merit is supposedly in regard to matters not being about faith and morality.

E.g. the letter by the 4 cardinals claims there is supposedly somewhere some sort of confusion about AL; if His Holiness finds their letter in this respect without merit, namely that there isn’t any confusion, His Holiness is in this respect not beyond anyone’s reach, who is capable of going to a or several parishes/priests/theologicans/bishops/cardinals and just poll/ask people whether they are confused about AL; if a large number reply, yes, i am confused about AL, then His Holiness is simply wrong if he considers the cardinal’s letter in this respect without merit.

Because whether some people are confused about something is a polling/social science issue and not an issue of faith.

 

[KSU]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Matthew 19

That hits the nail on the head and should be the end of the discussion. God’s words are exceedingly difficult to argue with.

But the power of sex is so strong that we find ways to argue with them anyway. Which is why God allowed Moses to permit divorce and remarriage for the Jews. For us, however, God wants His original intent regarding marriage to be the rule, and it’s been dogma since then–no more exceptions.

Our Lady warns us that sexual sin is the primary reason people go to hell, but we–all of us-- are weak and don’t always listen to Christ or his Mother. So, some of us get ourselves into serious trouble and begin to suffer the consequences.

Pope Francis, being who he is, suffers with us and wants his bishops to explore every possibility of relief for us. How to accomplish that licitly, however, is the 64 million dollar question. Thus we have Chapter Eight of A.L., confusion and the dubia pleading for clarity.

Some say clarity is not necessary and some say, because we are dealing with no less than the words of Christ and His Mother and 2,000 years of teaching, the restoration of clarity is absolutely necessary. We are living in extraordinary times.​

JPUSC, please allow me one nitpick. Some versions of Matthew 19 get it wrong, as I emboldened above. Christ did not say “except for sexual immorality” or adultery. He said “except for an invalid marriage”, which of course is Catholic teaching; i.e., “remarriage” is licit if the first marriage was invalid.
catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church

 

[Don_Ruggero]

False insofar as lack of merit is supposedly in regard to matters not being about faith and morality.

E.g. the letter by the 4 cardinals claims there is supposedly somewhere some sort of confusion about AL; if His Holiness finds their letter in this respect without merit, namely that there isn’t any confusion, His Holiness is in this respect not beyond anyone’s reach, who is capable of going to a or several parishes/priests/theologicans/bishops/cardinals and just poll/ask people whether they are confused about AL; if a large number reply, yes, i am confused about AL, then His Holiness is simply wrong if he considers the cardinal’s letter in this respect without merit.

Because whether some people are confused about something is a polling/social science issue and not an issue of faith.

That there is a lack of merit means the Pope, for whatever reason, determines that the petition submitted for the consideration of His Holiness is to go unanswered…that it is not to be given any response. That is his decision to make…alone.

It seems my language was not understood. So, let us be clear:

The only thing that can be presented to the Pope is the request of an inferior to a superior.

If the Pope deigns to look with favour upon a request, he will answer it favourably.

If he looks upon it and decides not to answer, for any reason whatsoever, then the request will go unanswered.

If he decides the answer is “no,” the answer is “no.”

The Pope cannot be obliged to answer because there is no authority that can be exerted to obtain an answer from him. He is completely sovereign. He, on the other hand, is perfectly free to deprive anyone at any level of their office.

I have no particular sympathy, frankly, if there are people who are confused or who work themselves into a lather about things for which they have neither background nor education – or, above all, any instance in which they would be applying the thing they are confused about.

In my diocese, we have norms now codified. They were written by those who quite well understood what was necessary to accomplish the task; they were not “confused” or in any doubt. And those priests implementing them have demonstrated that they know how to implement them, according to the mandate and mind of the bishop.

Personally, a poll would have no influence upon me or my thought process whatsoever. For that matter, even if no lay person in the whole diocese understood anything about any of this, it does not in any way impede the implementation of the guidelines because the laity have absolutely nothing to implement.

People may argue in this forum until they have no breath but it changes absolutely nothing of reality in the dioceses because there is no place for such people in this process.

• The bishop is the authority who implements.
• His presbyterate carries out the implementation with and under the bishop.

Period.

These are issues involving either an individual or a couple in consultation with a member of the presbyterate. No one else should be or ought to be involved. And, in my case…I can say if such a busybody tried to insert themselves where they did not belong, such a person would face very severe consequences under the provisions concerning delicts against ecclesiastical authorities.

 

[alwayswill]

That there is a lack of merit means the Pope, for whatever reason, determines that the petition submitted for the consideration of His Holiness is to go unanswered…that it is not to be given any response. That is his decision to make…alone.

It seems my language was not understood. So, let us be clear:

The only thing that can be presented to the Pope is the request of an inferior to a superior.

If the Pope deigns to look with favour upon a request, he will answer it favourably.

If he looks upon it and decides not to answer, for any reason whatsoever, then the request will go unanswered.

If he decides the answer is “no,” the answer is “no.”

The Pope cannot be obliged to answer because there is no authority that can be exerted to obtain an answer from him. He is completely sovereign. He, on the other hand, is perfectly free to deprive anyone at any level of their office.

I have no particular sympathy, frankly, if there are people who are confused or who work themselves into a lather about things for which they have neither background nor education – or, above all, any instance in which they would be applying the thing they are confused about.

In my diocese, we have norms now codified. They were written by those who quite well understood what was necessary to accomplish the task; they were not “confused” or in any doubt. And those priests implementing them have demonstrated that they know how to implement them, according to the mandate and mind of the bishop.

If no lay person in the whole diocese understood anything about any of this, it does not in any way impede the implementation of the guidelines because the laity have absolutely nothing to implement.

People may argue in this forum until they have no breath but it changes absolutely nothing of reality in the dioceses because there is no place for such people in this process.

• The bishop is the authority who implements.
• His presbyterate carries out the implementation with and under the bishop.

Period.

These are issues involving either an individual or a couple in consultation with a member of the presbyterate. No one else should be or ought to be involved. And, in my case…I can say if such a busybody tried to insert themselves where they did not belong, such a person would face very severe consequences under the provisions concerning delicts against ecclesiastical authorities.

The longer it goes on without a Papal response, the more Cardinals will seek clarification.

Various news sites are reporting:
Abp. Chaput Supports Clarifying ‘Amoris Laetitia’

 

[patricius79]

I have no particular sympathy, frankly, if there are people who are confused …

I think it’s good to have sympathy for people who are confused. I struggle to understand what the Holy Father is teaching, and I know that A.L. was written to both the clergy and the laity. But I certainly agree that we should submit to all binding teachings of the Papacy and to the discipline given by the Pope and clergy.

 

[Paganus]

Presuming to receive Holy Communion without repentance and conversion is exactly what AL seems to allow for in limited circumstances.

No worries. If this happens, it will be safe, legal, and rare.

 

[pnewton]

I think based on my understanding, the doctrine is kind of intertwined with the practice.

We need remember that there is some room for disagreement on what doctrine is on this topic. This was made clear at the synod.

I hate arguing against articles. They have no authority, reason to believe them, or ability to respond. In this case even a cursory reading should cause us to consider whether some author could really present an exhaustive list of possibilities, as he claim to have done. There is always a fourth option of “something else not on this list”. Still, the first one on the list is not a matter of doctrine. Since “proven” is not accurate, it could be replaced by “discerned.” Even the article, if you skip the proof text, gives us where we could look to this practice. From the article:

The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t receive the Eucharist comes from Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

This reads,

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Verse 28 allows for self-examination at least in some manner for fitness. Second, a person in mortal sin is not to receive communion because they are spiritually dead in sin. Yet it is not the objective state that makes this so, but real actual mortal sin. So while it is very practical that one having committed an object mortal sin cannot receive communion, there is nothing theologically imperative to this.

The article states:

There’s a problem with this line of reasoning. If the basis of permitting Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is that their first marriage was probably invalid, why should the Church presume that their second (or third, or fourth) marriage is valid? A presumption against the validity of marriage has to apply to all marriages equally.

For those who read Amoris Laetitia, and not just the news and quote snippets from it, this should present no problem. It is clear that a person in this type of irregular situation is not to receive communion for the asking. Rather, the pastor is to work with the person through a process of understanding the entire situation, while at the same time teaching the person about Catholic marriage to find a direction that is pastoral and doctrinally sound.

 

[carn]

because the laity have absolutely nothing to implement.

You mean, i do not have to decide when someone (*) proposes some sexual activity towards me, whether i should decline due to it being an intrinsically evil act or whether it might one of the issues ok due to circumstances (in which case i should also make a quick evaluation of circumstances)?

Phoning my priest in such situation might irritate the one proposing, at least, probably making him/her even angry. And even discussing such issues with a priest afterwards might make him/her angry, since potentially he/she considers this details to be none of the priest’s business; discussing such things with priest without that partner knowing does not feel like gold standard of conduct.

And in case i agreed to the proposal and screw up my confession schedule, i do not have to then ponder prior/at beginning of mass whether i should present myself for communion?

And if you suggest, i just should go along whatever is ok according to my bishop, does that mean the standard of the most “liberal” priest under that bishop should be applied (anyone can go to communion anytime, even non-catholics, hence i should not mind the issue and present myself to communion) - or the least “liberal” priest (in which case “screw up my confession schedule” is sufficient to refrain from communion, i think, as it would be playing safe, which doesn’t hurt, even if i did not sin)?

Ever thought that some people in certain situations have to make decisions fully knowing they are somewhat “critical” without being able to discuss issues with pries and therefore prefer clarity to have a better foundation to decide upon?

• insert husband/wife, remarried husband/wife, non-married; the problem does not change, as long as there aren’t intrinsical evil acts, because if there is no intrinsic evil act the sin will depend on the situation and potentially even non-married might be ok; just like husband/wife proposing to use condom has to be somehow decided; and coincidentally, whether there are intrinsic evil acts, which is relevant for such decisions, is one of the dubias asked.

I cannot exclude that i will end up in a situation in which the answer of the dubias will be for me personally relevant in a decision for which i cannot phone a priest to help me sort things out.

(Note, currently i presume that absolutely nothing changed whatsoever; but that presumption does not add up much with the dubias not being answered)

 

[pnewton]

I think it’s good to have sympathy for people who are confused. I struggle to understand what the Holy Father is teaching, and I know that A.L. was written to both the clergy and the laity. But I certainly agree that we should submit to all binding teachings of the Papacy and to the discipline given by the Pope and clergy.

I think most people have struggled with some teaching from time to time. I know I have, including the Church’s teaching on marriage, at least from the point of view of one like Cardinal Burke. I could make a list of apparent contradictions to his point of view, like he could do to that of Pope Francis. My approach is to not sweat it, but also understand that not only could I be wrong, but it is** likely **I am wrong at any time I am at odds with one who knows a lot more than I do.

And I keep at it. Keep studying, reading, trying to grapple with the gap between me and the Church, or me and another position I do not understand. I have the rest of my life to learn.

So, yeah, I like your approach.

 

[patricius79]

I think most people have struggled with some teaching from time to time. I know I have, including the Church’s teaching on marriage, at least from the point of view of one like Cardinal Burke. I could make a list of apparent contradictions to his point of view, like he could do to that of Pope Francis. My approach is to not sweat it, but also understand that not only could I be wrong, but it is** likely **I am wrong at any time I am at odds with one who knows a lot more than I do.

And I keep at it. Keep studying, reading, trying to grapple with the gap between me and the Church, or me and another position I do not understand. I have the rest of my life to learn.

So, yeah, I like your approach.

Forgive my obtuseness, but could you explain what the Pope says in AL which is binding on Catholics?

 

[pnewton]

Forgive my obtuseness, but could you explain what the Pope says in AL which is binding on Catholics?

FYI - Here is a quick one, though there is a lot:

The Synod Fathers noted that Jesus, “in
speaking of God’s original plan for man and
woman, reaffirmed the indissoluble union between
them, even stating that ‘it was for your
hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce
your wives, but from the beginning it was
not so’ (Mt 19:8). The indissolubility of marriage
– ‘what God has joined together, let no man put
asunder’ (Mt 19:6) – should not be viewed as a
‘yoke’ imposed on humanity, but as a ‘gift’ granted
to those who are joined in marriage…