Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[graciew]

Still, if a non-Catholic acquaintance asked me “Does the Church believe that marriage is permanent, lasting till death?” I would have no problem answering “yes, that is what we believe about marriage.” I would not say, “here is the number for my pastor,” because they would not call him. They just asked a simple question about Catholic belief, and the answer is pretty clear. If they asked, “does the Catholic Church teach that artificial contraception is wrong?” I could answer that one as well. “Yes, that is the teaching.”

Perfectly clear. That would be the basics.
Yet when somebidy is in deeper spiritual needs for whatever reason I would have zero doubt in entrusting them to my priest. I believe we would agree on this. As a general,any personal beyond, better go to sb more trained
And in general when persons start questioning either there is curiosity for which I have a certain amaount of time and knowledge or there is a need for which Ibetter answer the basics and redirect the need to who is better trained.
And if you think if it,it goes about the same in other áreas or questioning in life.
Real life examples, havingbsome troubles. Friends listen and thennthere would be a whatsap " Going to Admiration at 10. Want to come?’". Another one: " Need a teacher Wednedsy for after school help in the parish. Can you cine?" Another " Goingbto Mass at so and so today" Want to come?" There is a sale fir charity innso and so. Come! Shall I pick you up?

 

[graciew]

I typed awfully…excuse me ,Jim.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ok, “such people” … “are a blight”; that seems like a pretty harsh condemnation.

Oneofthewomen specifically refered to “some of you”, so some people in this thread discussing the issue. And was actually answering to Abyssinia.

I might know not realy much about Church law; but i know something about civil law; and under that it would not be unreasonable to understand, that as Oneofthewomen referred to some people here in the thread, that Don Ruggero effictively called some people in this thread a “blight”, with Abyssinia rather clearly (and probably me, cause he already said elsewhere he does not like my attitudes).

That is a rather remarkable conspiracy, yoking myself, Oneofthewomen, and Abyssinia.

As an exceptional exercise, since Oneofthewomen herself responded to what you wrote, I shall add my own diagramming.

I deliberately say “exceptional” because when someone on the forum shows such a twisting of people’s words as to be remarked by several different respondents, they are not someone I will interact with as that sort of behaviour does not merit interaction with. That is, in fact, one of the best uses I have found for the forum’s ignore feature.

Oneofthewomen said:
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 replied:
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.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/blight
*blight
noun

1 A plant disease, typically one caused by fungi such as mildews, rusts, and smuts:
‘the vines suffered blight and disease’
‘potato blight’

2 [in singular] A thing that spoils or damages something:
‘her remorse could be a blight on that happiness’*
Finally, I think there is indeed a very pronounced problem when it is Don Ruggero who is having to explain English language definitions on a forum that is taking place in English.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m not sure I understand what you want a concrete example of. My post refers to any pastoral inquiry about a marital irregularity. I don’t think I’d answer differently in any type of case no matter how well versed I would be on the topic, as I don’t have the pastoral care of that soul entrusted to me. When specific questions about specific situations arise on this forum, I rarely bother to participate in those threads but if I did, my answer would always be the same: consult with your pastor.

The same with any in-person inquiry.

Now if someone asked me, say, how to celebrate the feast of St. Andrew in the Liturgy of the Hours, then I would gladly give a specific answer, because it is a topic I have a lot of experience in, and indeed our oblate director uses me to teach the Liturgy of the Hours to oblates.

But on irregular marriages, the permutations and combinations are too great in order to give a specific answer. In general terms I might say something like the Church takes marriage very seriously, but does have pastoral procedures in place to deal with irregular situations, but those can only be rightly discussed with one’s own pastor who will examine every angle of a specific situation before proposing a course of action.

I think it Fr. Ruggero remarked it is rather similar to answering complex medical questions. I may know about Type II diabetes because I have type II diabetes, but my situation, level of control, severity, etc., are all different from someone else’s, and other then me speaking in generalities like losing weight and eating healthier, only that person’s physician can lay out a treatment plan tailored to his or her needs: degree and intensity of exercise based on cardiac test results, medication and dosage, etc.

Or if someone is complaining of pain that sounds like appendicitis, then I can’t offer more advice than “get yourself to a hospital pronto”.

Really spiritual health is not that much different than physical health. If you really feel unwell, a physician or nurse-practioner is best positioned to help you. Similarly if you are spiritually unwell due to past mistakes, you should seek out the most appropriate physician for your soul, your pastor. So why would one arrogate for him or herself the role of physician for an enquirer’s soul when only a real physician, the priest, possesses the proper training and information to treat the patient?

This forum has a policy to forbid the giving of medical advice. I’m beginning to think they should apply the same policy to pastoral advice, beyond giving generalities and proposing that inquiries be directed to the local pastor.

:yup:

If you would allow me to extend your example:

If a person appeared in front of you and asked you how to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours for the Feast of Saint Andrew, you would be able to answer with the specific instructions because the correct answers are quite exact…it is “this” and not “that”…whether we are talking about the Roman breviary or the monastic office or each for that matter. In each regard, I am confident that someone of Solesmes would give the precise answer for the LOTH.

If the same person who just appeared in front of you, however, instead asked about the feasibility of their becoming a part of the monastic family of your abbey as an oblate, being accepted into its oblature, making oblation, and how they properly should integrate the LOTH, Benedictine spirituality, and the Rule’s observance into their own daily life given (list of life circumstances and life commitments already in place), then we are in a different category of question that not only could you not answer, you should not even attempt to answer.

The answer, ultimately, would require discernments on the part of the oblate director, the person himself/herself, their own spiritual director, and potentially others in that person’s life.

If the first discernment was positive, they would be embarking on a formation journey that they would have to complete successfully in all its facets in order – if the various discernments were ultimately, again, positive – to eventually make their final oblation.

Such a specific scenario as cited is different from when you are explaining, in broad terms, what it means to be an oblate and how one could seek to become one…which again, like the LOTH question for Saint Andrew’s Feast, is a question you would indeed be able to answer.

 

[carn]

That is a rather remarkable conspiracy, yoking myself, Oneofthewomen, and Abyssinia.

As an exceptional exercise, since Oneofthewomen herself responded to what you wrote, I shall add my own diagramming.

I deliberately say “exceptional” because when someone on the forum shows such a twisting of people’s words as to be remarked by several different respondents, they are not someone I will interact with as that sort of behaviour does not merit interaction with. That is, in fact, one of the best uses I have found for the forum’s ignore feature.

Oneofthewomen said:
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 replied:
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.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/blight
*blight
noun

1 A plant disease, typically one caused by fungi such as mildews, rusts, and smuts:
‘the vines suffered blight and disease’
‘potato blight’

2 [in singular] A thing that spoils or damages something*:
‘her remorse could be a blight on that happiness’
Finally, I think there is indeed a very pronounced problem when it is Don Ruggero who is having to explain English language definitions on a forum that is taking place in English.

Then try to improve your reading skills; Oneofthewoman was talking about people in this thread; she did not say anything problematic; but you then spoke about the people Oneofthewoman was talking about as a “blight”.

If you did not mean it, fine.

But the usual interpretation would be, that you talked about the “some of you” Oneofthewoman talked about and called them a “blight”, for which at least one usual definition is of the not-so-nice-sort.

But as you think the second meaning of “blight” is ok to attribute to fellow catholics and as this might be the last message you read of me before putting me on “ignore” a serious advice from my side:
Some fo the people with similar approach as yours to various problems of the faith are in the sense of the second meaning a blight to the Church. Try not to be one of them.

(@mod: as Don Ruggero oked himself use of blight with second meaning, i cannot see any problem using it in my answer to him)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Then try to improve your reading skills; Oneofthewoman was talking about people in this thread; she did not say anything problematic; but you then spoke about the people Oneofthewoman was talking about as a “blight”.

If you did not mean it, fine.

But the usual interpretation would be, that you talked about the “some of you” Oneofthewoman talked about and called them a “blight”, for which at least one usual definition is of the not-so-nice-sort.

But as you think the second meaning of “blight” is ok to attribute to fellow catholics and as this might be the last message you read of me before putting me on “ignore” a serious advice from my side:
Some fo the people with similar approach as yours to various problems of the faith are in the sense of the second meaning a blight to the Church. Try not to be one of them.

(@mod: as Don Ruggero oked himself use of blight with second meaning, i cannot see any problem using it in my answer to him)

Actually, since you mention it: I myself appeal to the forum’s moderator against the user Carn for multiple violation of forum rules against multiple posters in this thread.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

/…/ I suspect many, perhaps most, Catholics and non Catholics think it haschanged.** If an inaccurate perception has arisen, there is responsibility to set the record straight** (1) /…/

It is true, in theory, that laity who hear about persons in a pastoral crisis should refer them to a priest (2) But laity are constantly talking with confused Catholics, and non Catholics, who are not in a pastoral crisis but have misinformation. They won’t make an appointment with a priest. They might listen for a few minutes to you, someone they know. **It goes without saying that I should tell people I am not an expert, that they should seek out a priest, but knowing they usually won’t, I give them what information I know is accurate, whether it’s about marriage, birth control, abortion/…/ ** (3)

With all due respect to priests and deacons, laity are on the front lines, since we are the parents, we are the coworkers, we are the friends and neighbors, we do most of the evangelism. We try to present not our own opinion but information accurate and consistent with the clergy and bishops. At present, some clergy and bishops seem to be interpreting the general template of AL differently from other clergy and bishops, which is a very different issue than the specific, person-by-person pastoral approach, John is different from Bill, and should be treated differently. What we are seeing is that if you have **this **bishop you are **all **treated differently from all those who have ****that ****bishop (4)

That isn’t pastoral sensitivity, it is confusion, and silence makes it worse (5)

1. Inaccurate perceptions exist today as they did yesterday and will tomorrow. I’ve had practicing Catholics, as well as non-practicing Catholics and non-Catholics, sit in my office and persevere in their perception that “an annulment” is simply a Catholic divorce; the terminology, for them, is sophistry

I can explain it to them in as much detail as I please but they’re as convinced in their perception at the end of a months long process as they were when I first said, “No. I’m sorry. You’re wrong.” The Church “is going to annul” the marriage. No. It may make a finding that the marriage is, in fact, null and declare it such but the Church and the tribunal did not “annul” it or in any way “make to be null” the marriage – the marriage was null from the beginning. And yet the perception endures. Just as do perceptions about many things. I don’t lose sleep in trying to dispel perceptions. I go forward with what I need to do, even if it may ultimately encourage a false perception. C’est la vie

1. It’s not simply “in theory.” And it’s not simply “in crisis.” It’s a matter of what is the proper response to the proper question

• “What is an ‘annulment’?” is one question; I generally answer in two or three sentences that I can, if needed, expand. Everyone should be able to give, at least, a simple answer. On the other hand, for the vast majority, I wouldn’t expect an elaborate answer that takes one distant from shore. If need be, those working in this can go into the deep sea.
• “What all is entailed in applying for a declaration of nullity, what can I expect, and how would the tribunal handle (such and such complicating factor)?” are yet a different set of questions – the answer is going to be much more involved. Depending on the particularities of the complicating factor – or even without taking that into account – it may not be possible for a lay person to answer at all. Those who have been through the process could at least relate their personal experience, such as it was
• “In my situation, would I need an annulment or would there be another option?” is another question entirely. That question should be answered after an examination of all the facets by a qualified expert. I’ve had enough cases where one who felt able answered – but they did so wrongly and created needless grief for the person concerned; the case was remanded to administrative process rather than to the tribunal
• “Would my case be granted a declaration of nullity?” After all these years and all I’ve seen and all that I’ve processed, I absolutely won’t speculate. I might initially say if certain grounds strike me as viable to pursue…but never further.

1. The information required radically depends upon the what and the why of what is being asked. By way of analogy, questions about pastoral accompaniment for those in irregular situations are more comparable to questions on the order of:

• “Would this specific marriage receive a declaration of nullity” as opposed to “Is marriage a lifelong union between a man and woman that is mutually exclusive and ordered to the procreation of children?”
• “Given this specific medical diagnosis (X) and these complicating factors, which would be the morally superior choice relative to these proposed courses of treatment and/or this pharmaceutical agent and/or this surgical intervention?” as opposed to “What is the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception?”
• “Given this specific cancer diagnosis in pregnancy, what are the moral implications associated with each of these therapeutic options?” as opposed to “What is the Church’s teaching on direct abortion?”

1. Those who have worked in assignments in different dioceses and different countries and different continents have lived that reality long before Amoris Laetitia. I’ve been in situations when on special assignment in North America where the course of action was the exact opposite of what is prescribed/proscribed in my diocese in Europe. Obviously, the course I chose in America conformed to the American disposition
2. That decision rests uniquely with those who have pastoral governance

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

Discuss the issues, not each other

 

[OraLabora]

:yup:

If you would allow me to extend your example:

If a person appeared in front of you and asked you how to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours for the Feast of Saint Andrew, you would be able to answer with the specific instructions because the correct answers are quite exact…it is “this” and not “that”…whether we are talking about the Roman breviary or the monastic office or each for that matter. In each regard, I am confident that someone of Solesmes would give the precise answer for the LOTH.

If the same person who just appeared in front of you, however, instead asked about the feasibility of their becoming a part of the monastic family of your abbey as an oblate, being accepted into its oblature, making oblation, and how they properly should integrate the LOTH, Benedictine spirituality, and the Rule’s observance into their own daily life given (list of life circumstances and life commitments already in place), then we are in a different category of question that not only could you not answer, you should not even attempt to answer.

The answer, ultimately, would require discernments on the part of the oblate director, the person himself/herself, their own spiritual director, and potentially others in that person’s life.

If the first discernment was positive, they would be embarking on a formation journey that they would have to complete successfully in all its facets in order – if the various discernments were ultimately, again, positive – to eventually make their final oblation.

Such a specific scenario as cited is different from when you are explaining, in broad terms, what it means to be an oblate and how one could seek to become one…which again, like the LOTH question for Saint Andrew’s Feast, is a question you would indeed be able to answer.

Exactly correct, father. And it’s a situation I often encounter. If someone asks, I answer in general terms what oblation is. I tell them that for me, it has been life-changing in a good way. And if they express an interest in discerning if they have this call, I refer them to our oblate director, or that of the monastery they are interested in, if it is a different one.

Details of the oblate program not only differ from one community to another, so too is the relationship to his or her monastery highly individual based on many factors including one’s station in life.

 

[Jesus_123]

. . . :bible1: . . .
But seek ye
FIRST
the kingdom of
GOD
and
His Righteousness,
and all these things
shall be added unto you.
- Luke 12:31
+In dedication to the Triumph of the Loving Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . .

There appears to be great confusion among so many Catholics . . . both here in the Forum and throughout Christendom . . . in regard to Papal Infallibility . … which misunderstanding of same is at the core of so much controversy and argument . . . *perhaps the below information might be of some help . . . *
. . . :coffeeread: . . .

Explanation of Papal Infallibility

"The Vatican Council has defined as ‘a DIVINELY REVEALED dogma’ that 'the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks
ex cathedra

— that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine Assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the **Divine Redeemer **wished **His **Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals … ’ "

:compcoff: Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm​

+
. . . :coffeeread: . . .

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

"Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error [1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in DIVINE REVELATION, or at least being intimately connected to DIVINE REVELATION. It is also taught that the **Holy Spirit **works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, DOES NOT state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation:

• Sacred :bible1: Scripture,
• Sacred Tradition,

and the* Sacred Magisterium.
The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. **The infallible teachings of the Pope MUST **be based on, or at least NOT contradict, * Sacred Tradition
or * Sacred :bible1: Scripture,
Papal infallibility DOES NOT signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e…, that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility …

Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used ONLY ONCE ex cathedra:

• in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.
  Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, * Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary an ex cathedra dogma in December 1854."
  :compcoff: Link: wapedia.mobi/en/Ex_cathedra

For further information click on links below:

Link: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Link: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Sacred Heart of Jesus prevail+
. . . Glory be to the Father and to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit+​

 

[commenter]

Just a reminder, this thread is not directly about the role of the laity, nor about marriage/divorce/communion.
It is about a speech, a speech made with the media known to be present, about certain individuals, who were apparently not present.

It doesn’t take a degree in theology to have an intelligent opinion about the prudence of using the public forum for that, regardless of what you think about AL.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just a reminder, this thread is not directly about the role of the laity, nor about marriage/divorce/communion.
It is about a speech, a speech made with the media known to be present, about certain individuals, who were apparently not present.

It doesn’t take a degree in theology to have an intelligent opinion about the prudence of using the public forum for that, regardless of what you think about AL.

I’m confused about whether the Dean of Rota did make the comment because a source that I reported about about on a prior post said he did not make the comment.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just a reminder, this thread is not directly about the role of the laity, nor about marriage/divorce/communion.
It is about a speech, a speech made with the media known to be present, about certain individuals, who were apparently not present.

It doesn’t take a degree in theology to have an intelligent opinion about the prudence of using the public forum for that, regardless of what you think about AL.

I’m confused about whether the Dean of Rota did make the comment or not because a source that I reported about in a prior post said he did not make the comment

 

[Peter_J]

The Cardinals issued an ultimatum. Pretty bold and audacious.

Wait, there are Catholics who aren’t respectful of the Pope?

 

[commenter]

I’m confused about whether the Dean of Rota did make the comment or not because a source that I reported about in a prior post said he did not make the comment

I read the correction: if this is accurate: “that After reviewing the recording, it has been proven that what he affirms is that Pope Francis is not a Pope of other times, in which they did take such measures, and that he was not going to withdraw their cardinality dignity”.

It seems like a much milder **public **rebuke than originally reported. I still wish he had not made any public rebuke, just as I wish the cardinals had not made any ****public ****dubia.

Private communications, of course were appropriate.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Father, isn’t the traditional solution to this that these people are welcome in the Church, should attend Mass, but simply should not receive Holy Communion until their marriage situation can be sorted out? I’ve seen several poster on this and other Catholic sites talk about parents and grandparents who entered into what they knew were irregular marriages who did just that. They attended Mass, raised their children as Catholics, but simply abstained from Holy Communion.

God Bless

I understand that, but they are also barred from receiving confirmation if they haven’t already received it. Or if they are not Catholic they are barred from entering the Church.

And as far as communion goes, its very hard for some people to understand how the Church can possibly consider their first marriage a marriage when in their mind it clearly was not.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I don’t understand the scenario, Father, because if the man has no idea what happened to his spouse, he wouldn’t know if she was remarried or not.

Whatever they know of their former spouse is irrelevant to the fact that they haven’t seen each other in over a decade and don’t believe their marriage was ever truly a marriage.

But yes, I think they are called to submit their case to the Church, and in the meantime live as brother and sister. They may not receive Communion if they aren’t willing to keep the moral law. If the annulment is denied, then they need to continue to live in continence. I think that is very realistic. Moral absolutes bind always and everywhere. They are the opposite of unrealistic.

But often they can’t submit their case to the Church because there are too many unknowns and variables.
Walk up to any married couple and tell them to abstain from sexual relations the rest of their lives because the Church says so. Over 90% will laugh. For many of these couples it feels the same way, they simply can’t comprehend how the Church can possibly say their first marriage was a legitimate marriage that binds them in any way. Its not that they disagree with the Church’s teaching on a valid marriage being permanent until death, its that they truly believe there’s no way their first marriage was valid.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Whatever they know of their former spouse is irrelevant to the fact that they haven’t seen each other in over a decade and don’t believe their marriage was ever truly a marriage.

But often they can’t submit their case to the Church because there are too many unknowns and variables.
Walk up to any married couple and tell them to abstain from sexual relations the rest of their lives because the Church says so. Over 90% will laugh. For many of these couples it feels the same way, they simply can’t comprehend how the Church can possibly say their first marriage was a legitimate marriage that binds them in any way. Its not that they disagree with the Church’s teaching on a valid marriage being permanent until death, its that they truly believe there’s no way their first marriage was valid.

What reasons could there be that they “can’t submit their case”?

This is key - "The Catholic Church presumes that every marriage is a valid union, and there must be sufficient grounds for declaring otherwise. "

lincolndiocese.org/tribunal/261-tribunal-questions-myths-about-annulments/3075-does-my-former-spouse-have-to-agree-to-a-declaration-of-nullity

There has to be “proof”. That’s what the article says.

A person may believe their former marriage was not valid, but the Church needs proof, not just someone’s belief that it was not.

If someone believes their marriage was not valid, but there is not proof, there can be doubt, and surely when something as serious as Communion is at stake, and the implications for the person who would receive Communion, if there can be doubt, it is not worth the risk.

 

[asd72]

Whatever they know of their former spouse is irrelevant to the fact that they haven’t seen each other in over a decade and don’t believe their marriage was ever truly a marriage.

But often they can’t submit their case to the Church because there are too many unknowns and variables.
Walk up to any married couple and tell them to abstain from sexual relations the rest of their lives because the Church says so. Over 90% will laugh. For many of these couples it feels the same way, they simply can’t comprehend how the Church can possibly say their first marriage was a legitimate marriage that binds them in any way. Its not that they disagree with the Church’s teaching on a valid marriage being permanent until death, its that they truly believe there’s no way their first marriage was valid.

Society has changed so much and divorce and remarriage has lost its stigma, but so has defacto relationships and same sex relationships.

Won’t admitting those who’s conscience doesn’t bother them to Holy Communion, further legitimise morality formed by society rather than by the Church?

 

[Jesus_123]

. . . :bible1: . . .
(Jesus teaching)

“He therefore that shall
BREAK ONE
of these least commandments,
and shall so teach men,
shall be called the
least
in the kingdom of heaven.
But he that shall
DO and TEACH,
he shall be called
great
in the kingdom of heaven.”
- Matthew 5:19

“But if thou wilt enter into life,
KEEP
THE COMMANDMENTS.”
*- Matthew 19:17b *

+*In dedication to the Triumph of the Loving Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . *

Perhaps the enlightenment from the depth of the Sweet Spirit of our Holy God’s . . . holy gift/charism of wisdom . . . contained in the below sharing re our Holy Mother Catholic Church’s *. . . centuries upon centuries . . . * of Sacred Tradition re the retention and profound reverence for the keeping of the Judeo/Christian Ten Commandments might be of some help here . . .
. . . :coffeeread: . . . **

"The Church teaches that Jesus freed people from keeping 'the burdensome Jewish law (Torah or Mosaic Law) with its 613 distinct regulations but NOT from the obligation to keep the Ten Commandments, because the Ten were written ‘with the finger of God’, … '[3] This teaching was​

reaffirmed** at the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)."

Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments_in_Catholic_theology​

Due to limited space in the below list only the specific Commandments relevant to the grave MORTAL sin of adultery (which has come into question due to very real ambiguities in Chapter 8 of the Amoris Laetitia document) have been quoted . . .
**. . . :bible1: . . .

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Deuteronomy 5:7-21**

I. [1] I am the LORD thy GOD … thou shalt not have strange gods before Me …

[7] “Thou shalt not have strange gods in my sight. … [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them. For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation, to them that hate me, [10] And shewing mercy unto many thousands, to them that love me, and
KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.”​

VI. [18] Neither shalt thou commit adultery…

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**2830 **
Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery ABSOLUTELY .172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it AS AN IMAGE OF THE SIN OF IDOLATRY.173​

IX. [21] Thou shalt NOT covet thy neighbour’ s wife:

[27] “Can a man hide **fire **in his bosom, and his garments not burn? [28] Or can he walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burnt? [29] So he that goeth in to his neighbour’ s wife, shall NOT be clean when he shall touch her.”

[32] “But he that is an ADULTERER, for the FOLLY of his heart shall DESTROY his own soul …” - Proverbs 6:27-29,32​

​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Precious Blood of Jesus Prevail+​