Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[patricius79]

Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. I’m an avid cyclist, but just because you tell me I should be able to win the Tour de France because some other cyclists have done so, doesn’t mean I could win the Tour de France!

The Rule of St. Benedict is full of making allowances for the weak, but also encouraging the strong.

Living a conjugal life of, say, 20 years doesn’t mean that they can stop just like that, just because Abyssinia says that because other couples can do it, they can do it.

Other couples can be held as an example of course. And the couple that has difficulty stopping should certainly be taught that stopping would be preferable. But they shouldn’t be cut off from God’s mercy if they, at this point in their lives, are unable to. Of course no human has the ability or authority to cut anyone off from God’s mercy. The Church can suggest what she thinks is the best path towards it, and she can lead and encourage, but she must also always accompany even those who fail and reassure the couple that God is merciful and loves them.

Monks take a lifetime to reach their ideal of Christian perfection. It’s not much different for the rest of us.

I agree that stopping would be difficult. But God gives people the grace to keep the Commandments. We’re not talking about expecting people to be perfect. We’re talking about people being willing to keep moral absolutes which are minimal moral requirements–the Ten Commandments. Keeping these laws of our nature are necessary for having true peace and joy. If people fall they can confess with a firm resolve to avoid sin and continue to receive Communion.

 

[fin]

Then I hope Pope Francis gives the CDF instruction to answer.

 

[bilop]

I’ll take a stab at this.

Person M is married in the Catholic Church to person F1. F1 wants a divorce after several years of a decent, but temped, marriage. M gets divorced and civilly remarried to F2 (who may or may not be Catholic) but does not bother trying to get an annulment. M has a loving marriage to F2 and has four children. M and F2 want to “return” to the Church and raise their children in the Catholic faith. If M cannot get an annulment, what is M to do? Never receive the Eucharist again? M cannot stop being intimate with his wife, that would be disproportionately uncharitable to an otherwise loving family. He cannot leave his family, which I think is the “further sin” that AL refers to. It would be sinful for M to stop loving his wife and family.

Feel free to pick this apart.

The traditional answer would be that M and F2 are free to (and should) return to/join the Church, attend Mass, and raise their children as Catholic. They are to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until they can validly marry, or live in continence.

The Church and God always have sympathy and openness to sinners. We just don’t pretend that sin isn’t sin.

God Bless

 

[OraLabora]

No one argues that these people should be considered in a state of grace, and worthy to receive communion while still sinning.

God bless

Unless they are not mortally culpable.

That is not something we are in a position to judge, only the person’s confessor is privy to that information. Charity should have us assume the best.

 

[bilop]

Reported to the moderators. Your link is to a sedevacantist site and the implications related to this thread are beyond the pale and have no place on a Catholic forum.

I linked for the quotation of St. Robert Bellarmine. Is the text inaccurate? I’d be happy to substitute another link.

Edit. And I have below. I had no idea the site was Sedavacantist. I simply Googled for St. Robert’s writings.

How is it that the opinions of a Saint can have no place on a Catholic Forum?

God Bless

 

[bilop]

One needs no qualifications to argue the truth. It should be self-evident to any Catholic that anyone who teaches against the unvarying Tradition and Doctrine of the Catholic Church is not to be obeyed. That any legislator who governs against justice, is not a legitimate legislator.

If you want a citation, I suggest you read St. Robert Bellarmine, the great Jesuit theologian, on the possibility of heresy from the Papacy, and the necessary consequences.

fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html

If I have to choose between the opinion of one priest in an internet forum, and a great St. and theolgian, the choice is not hard.

God Bless

Edit: I have substituted a different link due to a complaint about the site linked. It is too late to edit the previous post. If the moderator could substitute the new link in that post, I would be appreciative.

I apologize for linking an inappropriate site.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. I’m an avid cyclist, but just because you tell me I should be able to win the Tour de France because some other cyclists have done so, doesn’t mean I could win the Tour de France!

The Rule of St. Benedict is full of making allowances for the weak, but also encouraging the strong.

Living a conjugal life of, say, 20 years doesn’t mean that they can stop just like that, just because Abyssinia says that because other couples can do it, they can do it.

Other couples can be held as an example of course. And the couple that has difficulty stopping should certainly be taught that stopping would be preferable. But they shouldn’t be cut off from God’s mercy if they, at this point in their lives, are unable to. Of course no human has the ability or authority to cut anyone off from God’s mercy. The Church can suggest what she thinks is the best path towards it, and she can lead and encourage, but she must also always accompany even those who fail and reassure the couple that God is merciful and loves them.

Monks take a lifetime to reach their ideal of Christian perfection. It’s not much different for the rest of us.

God is merciful but God doesn’t want people to live in sin and if a remarried couple is not willing to change ways in regards to their sexual relationship, it is the couple who are putting up a metaphorical block between them and the embrace of the fullness of God’s mercy.

The Church should accompany the couple, but surely part of that accompaniment, like with any accompaniment that a couple or single person may have, is to encourage them to turn away from sin

 

[bilop]

Unless they are not mortally culpable.

That is not something we are in a position to judge, only the person’s confessor is privy to that information. Charity should have us assume the best.

But on what grounds? Because not sinning is hard? Avoiding sin is hard for all of us, not matter what our particular temptation is.

God Bless

 

[OraLabora]

I agree that stopping would be difficult. But God gives people the grace to keep the Commandments. We’re not talking about expecting people to be perfect. We’re talking about people being willing to keep moral absolutes which are minimal moral requirements–the Ten Commandments. Keeping these laws of our nature are necessary for having true peace and joy. If people fall they can confess with a firm resolve to avoid sin and continue to receive Communion.

My personal opinion is that anyone in the very limited circumstances where AL allows the D&R to receive communion are fully aware that their situation is not ideal, and that their reception of communion is part of a process of discernment and Christian growth accompanied by their pastor and worked out through the confessional.

The problem I have with AL dissenters is that by taking that one footnote out of context, they are overlooking the fact that any contextual reading would show that AL does not mean that all D&R may receive communion at will and without any regard to Church teaching on the nature of marriage.

It would therefore mean that people in this situation are in fact confessing and have a firm resolve to configure their lives to Christ’s expectations of them. It would also mean therefore, that we (who are not affected) should butt out of their lives and allow them to work this out privately with their confessors.

The only thing that AL implies that is perhaps novel is that this process won’t be instantaneous and while these couples in these circumstances work on their lives, they won’t be cut off from sacramental grace to nourish them on the journey.

 

[OraLabora]

The Church should accompany the couple, but surely part of that accompaniment, like with any accompaniment that a couple or single person may have, is to encourage them to turn away from sin

And pray tell, who here has taught otherwise? Where does AL suggest otherwise? Who has suggested that we should encourage people to continue in sin?

You are arguing against a straw man!

 

[bilop]

My personal opinion is that anyone in the very limited circumstances where AL allows the D&R to receive communion are fully aware that their situation is not ideal, and that their reception of communion is part of a process of discernment and Christian growth accompanied by their pastor and worked out through the confessional.

The problem I have with AL dissenters is that by taking that one footnote out of context, they are overlooking the fact that any contextual reading would show that AL does not mean that all D&R may receive communion at will and without any regard to Church teaching on the nature of marriage.

It would therefore mean that people in this situation are in fact confessing and have a firm resolve to configure their lives to Christ’s expectations of them. It would also mean therefore, that we (who are not affected) should butt out of their lives and allow them to work this out privately with their confessors.

The only thing that AL implies that is perhaps novel is that this process won’t be instantaneous and while these couples in these circumstances work on their lives, they won’t be cut off from sacramental grace to nourish them on the journey.

But the question remains, does this apply to other sins? Can the thief keep stealing, the murderer keep murdering, all the while receiving Communion, because they hope to stop at some point in the future?

That’s what confuses people. Why would the sin of adultery have a “special status”?

God bless

 

[bilop]

And pray tell, who here has taught otherwise? Where does AL suggest otherwise? Who has suggested that we should encourage people to continue in sin?

You are arguing against a straw man!

One could easily argue that absolving them and allowing them to receive Holy Communion is encouraging them to continue in sin. After all, if you say they are in a state of grace anyway, why should they stop? Most sinners stop sinning out of fear of hell.

God Bless.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’ll take a stab at this.

Person M is married in the Catholic Church to person F1. F1 wants a divorce after several years of a decent, but temped, marriage. M gets divorced and civilly remarried to F2 (who may or may not be Catholic) but does not bother trying to get an annulment. M has a loving marriage to F2 and has four children. M and F2 want to “return” to the Church and raise their children in the Catholic faith. If M cannot get an annulment, what is M to do?ie Never receive the Eucharist again? M cannot stop being intimate with his wife, that would be disproportionately uncharitable to an otherwise loving family. He cannot leave his family or cease being intimate with his wife, which I think is the “further sin” that AL refers to. It would be sinful for M to stop loving his wife and family.

Feel free to pick this apart.

The “lesser” of two evils remains evil. Beyond that, love and sex are not the same thing.

 

[OraLabora]

Most sinners stop sinning out of fear of hell.

God Bless.

Which is imperfect contrition.

The purpose of a spiritually-accompanied faith walk is to develop perfect contrition.

 

[bilop]

Which is imperfect contrition.

The purpose of a spiritually-accompanied faith walk is to develop perfect contrition.

Perfectly correct. But, imperfect contrition is sufficient to save us from hell. That is the primary goal of the Church; to save souls from hell.

God Bless

 

[OraLabora]

But the question remains, does this apply to other sins? Can the thief keep stealing, the murderer keep murdering, all the while receiving Communion, because they hope to stop at some point in the future?

That’s what confuses people. Why would the sin of adultery have a “special status”?

God bless

Indeed, why would the sin of adultery have any special status?

If a thief keeps stealing bread because his family is hungry and he is penniless, is he continuing to sin mortally? If “force of acquired habit” causes one particular sin of the flesh to not bear mortal culpability (see the CCC), why would adultery itself not have extenuating circumstances. Surely you wouldn’t equate the actions of a conjugal relationship in a long-standing second marriage with, say, someone having an affair with a co-worker?

While the matter is always grave, the culpability is almost always subjective. Why would “adultery” be treated any differently?

Someone stealing bread to feed a family is surely not the same as someone embezzling a widow’s retirement savings. Yet both are the grave matter of theft.

Why would you equate a stable albeit illicit long-standing second union with someone having an adulterous affair with a co-worker?

I just don’t understand this kind of black-and-white thinking. The Church herself does not think in these terms, as any study of the CCC on mortal sin would reveal.

 

[bilop]

Indeed, why would the sin of adultery have any special status?

If a thief keeps stealing bread because his family is hungry and he is penniless, is he continuing to sin mortally? If “force of acquired habit” causes one particular sin of the flesh to not bear mortal culpability (see the CCC), why would adultery itself not have extenuating circumstances. Surely you wouldn’t equate the actions of a conjugal relationship in a long-standing second marriage with, say, someone having an affair with a co-worker?

While the matter is always grave, the culpability is almost always subjective. Why would “adultery” be treated any differently?

Someone stealing bread to feed a family is surely not the same as someone embezzling a widow’s retirement savings. Yet both are the grave matter of theft.

Why would you equate a stable albeit illicit long-standing second union with someone having an adulterous affair with a co-worker?

I just don’t understand this kind of black-and-white thinking. The Church herself does not think in these terms, as any study of the CCC on mortal sin would reveal.

The Church never teaches that someone should continue committing grave sin, just because it doesn’t meet all the criteria of mortal sin.

If there are alternatives to theft to feed his family, the thief must take them. There are almost always alternatives to continued adultery. Especially in the advanced countries, where no one will strave if they leave their putative spouse.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

My personal opinion is that anyone in the very limited circumstances where AL allows the D&R to receive communion are fully aware that their situation is not ideal, and that their reception of communion is part of a process of discernment and Christian growth accompanied by their pastor and worked out through the confessional.

The problem I have with AL dissenters is that by taking that one footnote out of context, they are overlooking the fact that any contextual reading would show that AL does not mean that all D&R may receive communion at will and without any regard to Church teaching on the nature of marriage.

It would therefore mean that people in this situation are in fact confessing and have a firm resolve to configure their lives to Christ’s expectations of them. .

Right: AL says that “certain” people in irregular marriages may receive the help of the sacraments .

I beileve that if they have confessed, and have a firm resolve to live in continence, then they may receive, though I believe they are supposed to do so in private so that they don’t cause scandal (as I understand it that’s what Familiaris Consortio says). And as FC also says, I’m told, they need to stop living together unless there is a reason they cannot.

The problem is that the ambiguous statements and the failure to affirm that they must have the firm resolve to live in continence have created variant interpretations.

For example, I still don’t know what the Pope means when he says that a person in an irregular situation may know the rule but be unable to keep it without further sin.

What does that mean?

About Papal power: btw, I’m not sure that either Fr. Ruggero or bilops are right about Papal power. I’m still trying to understand it.

What is your understanding of the extent of Papal power in regard to doctrine and to discipline?

 

[bilop]

About Papal power: btw, I’m not sure that either Fr. Ruggero or bilops are right about Papal power. I’m still trying to understand it.

What is your understanding of the extent of Papal power in regard to doctrine and to discipline?

Heck, I’m not sure I’m right either. I’m just trying to interpret the teachings of the great theologians and the Ecumenical Councils to the best of my abilities.

I’ve been trying to have a dialogue with Father Ruggero to better understand, but he appears not to want to discuss the issue with laymen.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

Heck, I’m not sure I’m right either. I’m just trying to interpret the teachings of the great theologians and the Ecumenical Councils to the best of my abilities.

I’ve been trying to have a dialogue with Father Ruggero to better understand, but he appears not to want to discuss the issue with laymen.

God Bless

Here’s a scenario: for example, if Pope Francis commanded Cardinal Burke (or me) to not speak at all about AL or anything relating to it for one year.

Does he have the authority to do that? I’m inclined to think he does–even though it may be very unjust-- since such a command wouldn’t require us to violate divine law.

But I’ve never really explored these issues much.