Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[carn]

This ^ is something people already do.

This ^ is too. As a previous poster mentioned, and I can confirm from personal experience; A pastor will work with couples in a ‘do no harm to the couple’ fashion. That does not include accusing them of mortal sin and denying them the Eucharist.

And what is then the solution if the couple accidentally reads catechism 2384:
“Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.”

and 1385:
“Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

and 1490:
“The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy.”

and asks:
How can we receive the eucharist, if we cannot have a valid confession prior as we have no firm resolve not to have sex next week?

For me it seems, that for the pastoral approach care has to be taken, that the couple do not gain too much knowledge about church teaching at the wrong time. And that also seems to be tricky, as the scripture passage cited above, already might give them a clue, yet they are going to hear it sooner or later by attending mass.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

And what is then the solution if the couple accidentally reads catechism 2384:
“Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.”

and 1385:
“Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

and 1490:
“The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy.”

and asks:
How can we receive the eucharist, if we cannot have a valid confession prior as we have no firm resolve not to have sex next week?

For me it seems, that for the pastoral approach care has to be taken, that the couple do not gain too much knowledge about church teaching at the wrong time. And that also seems to be tricky, as the scripture passage cited above, already might give them a clue, yet they are going to hear it sooner or later by attending mass.

Accidentally reads the catechism… I’m going to use that one in the future. I probably won’t credit you just so you know…

 

[TMC]

The way one acts should be in conformity to what they believe. Doctrine didn’t used to be gray or divorced from practice. Our approach to implementing doctrine in our lives is often gray…and that’s what used to be known as “sin.”

Doctrine is not divorced from practice in AL. Sounds like the real problem is that you are unhappy with the doctrine.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is what I don’t understand. If you are NOT in a situation like this, why do YOU need clarity?

This is a matter that is between the couple & their confessor/priest, and MAYBE their Bishop.

There has been no change to the actual teaching. AL is a document that is meant to help with pastoral care that is 200+ pages and people are getting hung up on a footnote. I don’t get it.

I am a revert, Baptized as an infant, then away for the Church until 6th grade. I was catechised for a total of 3 years in the early 80’s and received First Communion & Confirmation. Then left the Church again as a young adult. When I decided to return, some 15 years later, I was in an irregular situation. If my priest(s) had taken such a “hard line” stance as some of you seem to suggest, I NEVER would have made it back home to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but to think that is what many of you here want and it makes me very sad.

“hung up on a footnote”? I care very much that what is that footnote like elsewhere in the document is fully consistent with Church teaching on the understanding of marriage and Communion for the divorced and remarried. That’s why I want clarity. The Cardinals have presented the questions in the dubia. I hope they are answered.

Many people may have to do hard difficult things, to give up a same-sex relationship, or to stop using contraception, give up pornography, or to live as brother and sister in their remarriage, but sometimes Catholics have to do difficult things in order to abide by the Church’s teachings so Catholics can fullly embrace God’s mercy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Some sites not to be linked here claim that Fr. Spandaro had an additional twitter account from which 1 or 2 tweets against the 4 cardinals were posted, which then were retweeted via Fr. Spandaros official twitter account.

These sites also provide some screeenshots that, if they are authentic, substantiate that claim to some extent, namely that the twitter account in qustion also was tied to Fr. Spandaros email adress.

If you are not prepared to substantiate you claim by providing links so other adults can assess then it isn’t really worthy of you to even raise this issue which then amounts to little more than unsubstantiated, unecessary divisive and defamatory gossip on your part:blush:.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

If you are not prepared to substantiate you claim by providing links so other adults can assess then it isn’t really worthy of you to even raise this issue which then amounts to little more than unsubstantiated, unecessary divisive and defamatory gossip on your part:blush:.

To be fair, carn did not make the original statement, fin did in post #3.

Carn’s reply was in answer to someone’s question about what ‘fin’ was talking about.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Some sites not to be linked here claim that Fr. Spandaro had an additional twitter account from which 1 or 2 tweets against the 4 cardinals were posted, which then were retweeted via Fr. Spandaros official twitter account.

These sites also provide some screeenshots that, if they are authentic, substantiate that claim to some extent, namely that the twitter account in qustion also was tied to Fr. Spandaros email adress.

Father’s surname is SPADARO. It is not “Spandaro”.

 

[carn]

If you are not prepared to substantiate you claim by providing links so other adults can assess then it isn’t really worthy of you to even raise this issue which then amounts to little more than unsubstantiated, unecessary divisive and defamatory gossip on your part:blush:.

I answered a question by Convert in 99 to the best of my knowledge and within the rules set by this forum; sometimes i have the impression i am realy somehow a freak in that i try to answer questions.

But i will sent you a PM with a link to one of the sites spreading such a claim; and i did in no way verify what they claim, so read on your own risk.

@Don Ruggero
Thanks for the correction, i should be more careful and precise.

 

[KSU]

The person who has the authority to speak for Pope Francis and respond to the dubia, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), told us yesterday that he has not been asked (yet) to do so.

Nevertheless, he told us to “remain objective and not be drawn into polarization”, and then indirectly settled the question of whether divorced and remarried Catholics could be admitted to Communion: he referred to the 1993 directive from the CDF, in which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger rejected a plan by German bishops to allow divorced couples to receive Communion in some cases.

He said that Amoris Laetitia should be read in the light of previous papal documents, and that the permanence of the marriage bond should be the “unshakeable foundation” of every pastoral strategy. He said that Pope Francis was seeking to help couples “find a way that is in accordance with God’s gracious will.”

Everyone on this thread has read (e.g., post #155) and knows that the primary “previous papal document” is St. John Paul II’s FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, which reads in part:

QUOTE However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.
They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.
Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the DUTY to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."180 END QUOTE

Those who disagree with Cardinal Müller that St. JP II and B XVI have put an end to the matter really are saying that Pope Francis wants pastors to see if there is some loophole around Church teaching. That’s the only way to put it, and that’s not a pastor’s job or competence.

There is nothing new about accompaniment in the internal forum which can change Church teaching, and thousands of bishops around the world have acted accordingly since A.L. was issued.

So, the only news is very good news: Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, was misquoted and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has told us that there is nothing new here-- Pope Francis was seeking to help couples “find a way that is in accordance with God’s gracious will.” We all know what that will is because Christ told us and the Church has been teaching it ever since.

 

[dans0622]

he referred to the 1993 directive from the CDF, in which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger rejected a plan by German bishops to allow divorced couples to receive Communion in some cases. …

This is a curious reference. Is he talking about the 1994 Letter which came as a sort of response to those few German bishops who advanced more of what I will call a “conscience based” standard for each communicant? If so, that document can be found here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

If there is a *1993 * CDF document on the same topic, I don’t think I have ever seen it.

Dan

 

[1Lord1Faith]

And what is then the solution if the couple accidentally reads catechism 2384:
“Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.”

and 1385:
“Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

and 1490:
“The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy.”

and asks:
How can we receive the eucharist, if we cannot have a valid confession prior as we have no firm resolve not to have sex next week?

For me it seems, that for the pastoral approach care has to be taken, that the couple do not gain too much knowledge about church teaching at the wrong time. And that also seems to be tricky, as the scripture passage cited above, already might give them a clue, yet they are going to hear it sooner or later by attending mass.

How should I know? In my opinion, that’s a fairly unrealistic scenario. I think you’re underestimating the scope of ignorance people can have about ‘Church’ matters. Not only the ignorance itself but the reasons for it.

 

[carn]

There is nothing new about accompaniment in the internal forum which can change Church teaching, and thousands of bishops around the world have acted accordingly since A.L. was issued.

And you include in those thousands of bishops also the bishops of argentinia, who according to a document supposedly say:

data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Basic_Criteria_for_the_Application_of_Chapter_VIII_of_Amoris_Laetitia__September_5__2016.pdf

“6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Noneth
eless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301 - 302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the
aid of grace.”

?

Note that “the aforementioned option” refers to the previous passage 5. in the document which highlights the possibility of living in continence.

Naively, one could understand the above to open up the possibility of divorced and remarried and not living in continence receiving the eucharist, which naively one could think to be in contradiction with:
"Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the DUTY to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

Also this document supposedly was praised by the Pope:
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/12/pope_endorses_argentine_bishops_document_on_amoris_laetitia/1257635

lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-radio-confirms-popes-leaked-letter-on-amoris-laetitia-as-authentic

data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Letter_of_pope_to_Pastoral_Region_of_Buenos_Aires__September_5__2016.pdf

"The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity. "

(And no, i cannot guarantee that translations are correct; but maybe someone with spanish skills can check a few parts, whether the translation seems to be ok)

So, the only news is very good news: Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, was misquoted and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has told us that there is nothing new here-- Pope Francis was seeking to help couples “find a way that is in accordance with God’s gracious will.” We all know what that will is because Christ told us and the Church has been teaching it ever since.

Well, i personally do not exclude the possibility that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is trying to support the position of the 4 cardinals to some extent without risking his job; that would also fit what he said.

 

[carn]

How should I know? In my opinion, that’s a fairly unrealistic scenario. I think you’re underestimating the scope of ignorance people can have about ‘Church’ matters.

Even if it is unrealistic, i think even those despising those legalistic black-and-white pharisees honestly should admit, that its not directly nefarious disobidence, if one thinks the approach:

AL works fine if people do not read the catechism.

might benefit from more clarity.

 

[KSU]

This is a curious reference. Is he talking about the 1994 Letter which came as a sort of response to those few German bishops who advanced more of what I will call a “conscience based” standard for each communicant? If so, that document can be found here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

If there is a *1993 * CDF document on the same topic, I don’t think I have ever seen it.

Dan

In my post #122 yesterday, the source of the 1993 date was an article in English. If it’s any help, here is, in relevant part, a German account of the Cardinal’s interview. It also uses the 1993 date, but I can’t read German, viz:

Verweis auf Antwort Ratzingers von 1993

Ausdrücklich nannte er die offizielle Antwort der Glaubenskongregation auf das Hirtenschreiben der drei süddeutschen (oberrheinischen) Bischöfe von 1993 zum Kommunionempfang von wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen. Darin lehnte Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger als damaliger Präfekt der Kongregation den Vorstoß der Bischöfe ab, den Betreffenden in Einzelfällen den Kommunionempfang zu ermöglichen.

Source: kath.net/news/57677

( Papstkritische Kardinäle: Glaubenspräfekt )fürchtet Polarisierung (Kathpress)

 

[commenter]

Accidentally reads the catechism… I’m going to use that one in the future. I probably won’t credit you just so you know…

In most dioceses, this is a small risk; just as it is possible you will have a car accident this week, you probably won’t have to worry about that risk too much.

There is no effort in most dioceses to communicate to Catholics the level of importance of the Catechism, or even that it exists. If someone ****really ****wants to review a catechism, they can no doubt find one in the religious education office, probably under lock and key. In mint condition.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Because the laity have a very strong role in evangelization. Friends, family and other parishioners are often the first contact those who seek to redress their marriages will encounter. The laity are a core component of spiritual accompaniment.

It is thus very important that the laity have a clear understanding of what the Church teaches on this, and ever other subject that might impact friends, family and those in our community.

And it is precisely this sort of attitude that creates very unfortunate situations that have to be subsequently untangled.

Too many times I have had people with circumstances easily resolved that put off seeing their parish priest because some “helpful” friend or family member gave them horrible advice that was not, actually, tailored to their unique situation. Because the person advising them was not only not a canonist, they had never even actually systematically studied canon law, and were not competent to make the determination they attempted to make – thus, what they said was simply wrong.

 

[KSU]

And you include in those thousands of bishops also the bishops of argentinia, who according to a document supposedly say:

data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Basic_Criteria_for_the_Application_of_Chapter_VIII_of_Amoris_Laetitia__September_5__2016.pdf

“6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Noneth
eless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301 - 302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the
aid of grace.”

No, my friend, I did not include them. I referred, of course, only to the thousands of bishops who, even before Cardinal Gerhard Müller spoke yesterday, acted in accordance with the teachings of St. JP II and B XVI. Even so, the bishops of Argentina did not preclude the truth --that St. JP II and B XVI put an end to the matter. They in fact left the door open to that with their last sentence in your above quote.

Well, i personally do not exclude the possibility that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is trying to support the position of the 4 cardinals to some extent without risking his job; that would also fit what he said.

**Now, now; be nice. You can’t go there without, at the same time, admitting that there is the possibility that the bishops of Argentina want to support their national pride and joy. And why wouldn’t they? They could do so and still leave the door open a crack for St. JP II and B XVI. **

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is a matter that is between the couple & their confessor/priest, and MAYBE their Bishop.

/…/ I don’t get it.

This is precisely correct. And, frankly, cannot be too much underscored.

I would never talk about any pastoral decision or any pastoral accommodation with any party outside those directly concerned. The more personal the matter, the more those who are outside of the situation need to be shut down from having any involvement whatsoever.

I am a revert, Baptized as an infant, then away for the Church until 6th grade. I was catechised for a total of 3 years in the early 80’s and received First Communion & Confirmation. Then left the Church again as a young adult. When I decided to return, some 15 years later, I was in an irregular situation. If my priest(s) had taken such a “hard line” stance as some of you seem to suggest, I NEVER would have made it back home to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but to think that is what many of you here want and it makes me very sad.

You are exactly correct. And it is precisely such people, as you indicate, who do incalculable harm to souls, damage the Church, and are a blight.

There are many people who insert – or attempt to insert – themselves into situations where they simply do not belong. I have little patience for such busybodies and those who are parish priests need to act forcefully and decisively against such persons.

So many situations that one encounters in pastoral life have nothing to do with a mindset as though one were following a procedures manual. Even where, externally, two situations can be seemingly identical outwardly, the path of pastoral intervention and care may be wholly different, in light of other factors.

No less true is the fact that the more unusual the situation, the more need there is for such a person in such a situation to be followed by a priest who is a pastoral caregiver that combines being both very knowledgeable and very experienced…one who has, as Pope Francis has stated, discernment.

 

[pnewton]

But is Pope Francis using his authority to change the traditional understanding of Communion for D/R without annulment and not intending to live in contienence in contradiction to what was explicitly taught by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio?

This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the DUTY to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."180 …

You use the word “taught”. Pope Francis said “practice”. He is clear that continence was a practice, and application of doctrine, and a good one. It provided something that was doctrinally acceptable for couples in some situations. However, there is nothing in Familiaris Consortio that makes this practice a doctrine, nor the** only **possible solution. A practice can be changed, or it can be expanded.

 

[Brendan]

And it is precisely this sort of attitude that creates very unfortunate situations that have to be subsequently untangled.

Too many times I have had people with circumstances easily resolved that put off seeing their parish priest because some “helpful” friend or family member gave them horrible advice that was not, actually, tailored to their unique situation. Because the person advising them was not only not a canonist, they had never even actually systematically studied canon law, and were not competent to make the determination they attempted to make – thus, what they said was simply wrong.

Which is why the laity need clarity on what the Church teaches.