Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[TMC]

Not at all did I say anything like what you suggest. The question is whether a person in the state of grave sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. How is an attempt to provide what I believe is the answer to the question as it is given in the article a judgment on my part that anyone is in the state of mortal sin?

Again, the question is whether a person in this state ought to be permitted to receive Holy Communion. This is hardly a judgment that anyone is in such a state: That is a question that is not for me to attempt to answer.

Accordingly, could you please explain your own judgment: “You seem to be under the impression that you can make a blanket judgment that people you have never met are not in a state of grace and therefore unworthy to receive the Sacraments due to grave sin.”

Could you further tell us where in AL it is provided that it is required that one’s pastor must participate in this discernment?

You expressed your concern that people not in a state of grace would now be able to participate in the Sacraments, and that this would be grave sin. I assumed that you were not merely musing generally, and that you were referring to a specific concern that individuals remarried without an annulment might be given access to the Sacraments. Was that not what you meant? I am saying that you are not in a position to judge whether a person who is remarried without the benefit of an annulment is in a state of grace or not, or whether such a person receiving the Sacraments would be a grave sin. If you agree that you are not in a position to make such a judgment, then I guess we agree, but then I am not sure what your concern is.

As to the involvement of a pastor, the portion of AL that is most vigorously discussed (and criticized) is fn 351, which is addressed to priests, and most of the criticism seems to be leveled at the idea that priests would assent to the participation of certain parishioners in the Sacraments. The idea that individual Catholics can and should consult their own consciences about whether to participate in the Sacraments is not new or unique to AL.

 

[TMC]

Regarding marriage issues, until now your bolder statement has not been the case. Except for a possible few in the early Church, marriage, because it is a public sacrament, has always been considered something that must be dealt with in an external forum. AL appears to be making a substantial change, and as noted in the article, it seems that this substantial change is precisely what the Pope intended, or at least approves.

I think that the reality is that this has always been the case, and that AL is codifying a long standing (and in my view proper) pastoral practice

 

[Convert_in_99]

I think that the reality is that this has always been the case, and that AL is codifying a long standing (and in my view proper) pastoral practice

Sorry, could you please clarify? I’m not the brightest I admit.

 

[TMC]

Then don’t take his word for it:

"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." Familiaris Consortio Paragraph 84 by Pope Saint John Paull II.

This is precisely the problem. This isn’t a trivial situation, we are talking about mortal sin in breaking the ten commandments and the salvation of souls. We are talking about one Diocese or Parish continuing to teach based on Scripture that sex outside of marriage is a grave sin, and the Diocese or Parish next door changing the teaching to say that what was once a matter of the life and death of souls is now “not a big deal”. This is precisely why relativism is so dangerous and has been robustly rejected since the beginning. If this is what God wanted all along, why wouldn’t he have said so from the beginning?

Either you’re suggesting the Holy Spirit, which preserves the Church from doctrinal error, has changed its mind after 2000 years, or that the old teaching was wrong all along. The former is absurd, and the latter is simply not Catholic.

It is you who are suggesting that the Church is departing from the Holy Spirit, embracing relativism, abandoning Scripture and so forth, not I. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is possible that Pope Francis and the bishops are correct and following the Spirit? Can you at least admit to the possibility that the Vicar of Christ is right?

 

[TMC]

Sorry, could you please clarify? I’m not the brightest I admit.

The suggestion was (I believe) that for 2,000 years no person who was remarried without a proper annulment could be admitted to the Sacraments. I don’t believe that. I think that pastors throughout the long history of the Church have understood (as Francis does) that life is complicated, and that sin and grace are simply not concepts that can be reduced to checklists. So priests, pastors and confessors have dealt with difficult situation as pastors, with mercy. At times this has included “the help of the sacraments,” as AL puts it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The suggestion was (I believe) that for 2,000 years no person who was remarried without a proper annulment could be admitted to the Sacraments. I don’t believe that. I think that pastors throughout the long history of the Church have understood (as Francis does) that life is complicated, and that sin and grace are simply not concepts that can be reduced to checklists. So priests, pastors and confessors have dealt with difficult situation as pastors, with mercy. At times this has included “the help of the sacraments,” as AL puts it.

“You think.” "You believe’. But you don’t offer evidence. You are simply speculating. And even if you were correct, if any priest, pastor, or confessor were to give ‘the help of the sacraments’, that priest, pastor, or confessor would have been disobeying the teachings of the Church were he to give the Eucharist to people in the situation of being divorced/remarried without any annulment, and NOT seeking to live in continence/as brother and sister should there be grave reason for them NOT to separate.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not shrugging about issues involving souls.

I still do not see a difference between receiving confession then communion in trying to learn to live chastely and receiving confession then communion in overcoming any other mortal sin. No difference at all in my book.

It’s one thing to have a purpose of amendment and occasionally fail; it’s another not to have a purpose of amendment at all.

ETA: Remember, this whole fix is for those unable or unwilling to commit to living as brother and sister in the objectively adulterous relationship.

As I replied to TE, I don’t remember individual conscience being involved. It seemed pretty clearly up to the priest’s determination.

Maybe when you look the document over, you’ll find whatever gave you that impression and post it here for us?

ETA: Just a thought…Would not a spouse with children in this situation who wished to remain chaste, be therefore not guilty if sexual relations were demanded of them (marriage rights.) Would this not be same as continuing marriage relations with a spouse who used contraceptives (against the will of the spouse wishing to be faithful?) This is so the marriage ends not in divorce. Could this be one of the possibilities for an exception? Just considering, my former opinion still stands.

Well, no, because objectively the person asserting “marital rights” is not the person with the marital rights. You need to remember that in the eyes of the Church, up until now, the first spouse is still considered the only spouse.

 

[TMC]

“You think.” "You believe’. But you don’t offer evidence. You are simply speculating. And even if you were correct, if any priest, pastor, or confessor were to give ‘the help of the sacraments’, that priest, pastor, or confessor would have been disobeying the teachings of the Church were he to give the Eucharist to people in the situation of being divorced/remarried without any annulment, and NOT seeking to live in continence/as brother and sister should there be grave reason for them NOT to separate.

I base my conclusions on long experience as a Catholic, on many conversations with priests and lay Catholics, and on extensive reading on the history of the Church. I could be wrong, I suppose. But it is certainly true that the “the help of the sacraments” is available now. I think that the conclusion that that is a new thing is incorrect, and based on an oversimplification of the Church’s teaching and practice.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that the reality is that this has always been the case, and that AL is codifying a long standing (and in my view proper) pastoral practice

Who are you that your view is so important? Because previous *popes *have come out against any sort of “solution” other than getting an annullment and subsequent blessing/radical sanation of the marriage, and while a very few, very early Church fathers may have gone this route, the current incarnation of this type of solution dates back only a handful of decades.

It is at best disengenuous to suggest that large numbers of Catholic priests have been disobeying the Church all along.

 

[Mongo]

The suggestion was (I believe) that for 2,000 years no person who was remarried without a proper annulment could be admitted to the Sacraments. I don’t believe that. I think that pastors throughout the long history of the Church have understood (as Francis does) that life is complicated, and that sin and grace are simply not concepts that can be reduced to checklists. So priests, pastors and confessors have dealt with difficult situation as pastors, with mercy. At times this has included “the help of the sacraments,” as AL puts it.

In the past they were far more serious than we are now. The fathers would give people public penances that lasted years before they were readmitted to communion. They didn’t see it as ‘complicated’. It was simple, even if it was difficult.

 

[Thomas_White]

You expressed your concern that people not in a state of grace would now be able to participate in the Sacraments, and that this would be grave sin. I assumed that you were not merely musing generally, and that you were referring to a specific concern that individuals remarried without an annulment might be given access to the Sacraments. Was that not what you meant? I am saying that you are not in a position to judge whether a person who is remarried without the benefit of an annulment is in a state of grace or not, or whether such a person receiving the Sacraments would be a grave sin. If you agree that you are not in a position to make such a judgment, then I guess we agree, but then I am not sure what your concern is.

As to the involvement of a pastor, the portion of AL that is most vigorously discussed (and criticized) is fn 351, which is addressed to priests, and most of the criticism seems to be leveled at the idea that priests would assent to the participation of certain parishioners in the Sacraments. The idea that individual Catholics can and should consult their own consciences about whether to participate in the Sacraments is not new or unique to AL.

You expressed your concern that people not in a state of grace would now be able to participate in the Sacraments, and that this would be grave sin. I assumed that you were not merely musing generally, and that you were referring to a specific concern that individuals remarried without an annulment might be given access to the Sacraments. Was that not what you meant?

No, it is not what I meant. What I said (three times) is that the question is whether a person not in the state of grace should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. That’s all. The meaning you suggest is entirely your own incorrect assumption.

I am saying that you are not in a position to judge whether a person who is remarried without the benefit of an annulment is in a state of grace or not, or whether such a person receiving the Sacraments would be a grave sin. If you agree that you are not in a position to make such a judgment, then I guess we agree, but then I am not sure what your concern is.

I certainly agree I am not in a position to make such a judgment (e.g., Matt: 7.1). Again, the question is whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. I know very well such a provision is contrary to the historical and traditional teachings of the Church. If this is what AL provides, then I believe it is a radical change in doctrine and therefore should be explained.

As to the involvement of a pastor, the portion of AL that is most vigorously discussed (and criticized) is fn 351, which is addressed to priests, and most of the criticism seems to be leveled at the idea that priests would assent to the participation of certain parishioners in the Sacraments. The idea that individual Catholics can and should consult their own consciences about whether to participate in the Sacraments is not new or unique to AL.

Irrespective of whether or not a priest must participate in the discernment is the question that I raised in my original comment above. Once again, it is as follows: Should a person in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion? It is a straightforward question and requires a straightforward ‘Yea’ or a ‘Nay’ but not a ‘Maybe’ for an answer.

I know that “the idea that individual Catholics can and should consult their own consciences about whether to participate in the Sacraments is not new or unique to AL.” In fact, I have known it since I received my First Communion in 1951. Actually, we were taught to examine our consciences and if we believed we were not in the state of grace, then we must not receive Holy Communion.

The question is simple: Has this teaching been changed by AL?

 

[Thomas_White]

You expressed your concern that people not in a state of grace would now be able to participate in the Sacraments, and that this would be grave sin. I assumed that you were not merely musing generally, and that you were referring to a specific concern that individuals remarried without an annulment might be given access to the Sacraments. Was that not what you meant?

No, it is not what I meant. What I have said (three times) is that the question is whether a person not in the state of grace should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. That’s all. The meaning you suggest is entirely your own incorrect assumption.

I am saying that you are not in a position to judge whether a person who is remarried without the benefit of an annulment is in a state of grace or not, or whether such a person receiving the Sacraments would be a grave sin. If you agree that you are not in a position to make such a judgment, then I guess we agree, but then I am not sure what your concern is.

I certainly agree I am not in a position to make such a judgment (e.g., Matt: 7.1). Again, the question is whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. I know very well such a provision is contrary to the historical teachings of the Church. If this is what AL provides, then I believe it is a radical change in doctrine and therefore should be explained.

As to the involvement of a pastor, the portion of AL that is most vigorously discussed (and criticized) is fn 351, which is addressed to priests, and most of the criticism seems to be leveled at the idea that priests would assent to the participation of certain parishioners in the Sacraments. The idea that individual Catholics can and should consult their own consciences about whether to participate in the Sacraments is not new or unique to AL.

Irrespective of whether or not a priest must participate in the discernment is the question that I raised in my original comment above. Once again, it is as follows: Should a person is the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion? It is a straightforward question and requires a straightforward ‘Yea’ or a ‘Nay’ but not a ‘Maybe’.

I know that “the idea that individual Catholics can and should consult their own consciences about whether to participate in the Sacraments is not new or unique to AL.” In fact, I have known it since I received my First Communion in 1951. We were taught then, at age 6, that if we were not in the state of grace, then we must not receive Holy Communion. I do not recall that this discernment was difficult.

Has this teaching been changed by AL?

 

[Brendan]

This also is a less than clear understanding of Church teaching on conscience.
It is “correct conscience” that is confirmed by the teachings of God.
One may still be in “good conscience” even if that conscience is erroneous provided one has taken the trouble to inform oneself.

In what way is the conscience ‘good’ if it is inclined against the Natural Law and erroneous at that? What makes such a conscience a good one?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Throughout, both camps have agreed that dogma has not and can not change.

This is so basic and tautologically true as not to need saying surely.
But what “dogma” exactly it is you are putting in the spotlight?

…the question of whether Church discipline has been changed by Pope Francis.

How can anyone be in any further doubt given his endorsement of the Argentinian Bishop’s Guidelines?

What you … argue is that A.L. changed Church discipline to permit a priest in the internal forum to substitute his judgement for that of a Marriage Tribunal.

I don’t believe I have knowingly opined such. Can you quote me where you think I was drawing that bow?

If you say Communion can now be possible…you must then say…all related teachings, definitions (e.g., grave sin) and Cannon Law have been changed.

Well its fairly clear that Pope Francis sees no intrinsic barring of Communion for some of those in irregular marriages where the Tribunal process has not worked properly. That may require changing of some Canon Law rules, which happens all the time when disciplines change so that is of little consequence.
As for “teachings” and “definitions” that depends what you mean by these words. What specific teachings or definitions do you see needing to change to accommodate such a change in practice?

It is beyond belief…to imply that Pope Francis intended to authoritatively make those changes as Head of the Church, but refuses to say so.

Why is polite refusal to be explicit evil in some way? Jesus spoke in riddles, Buddha spoke in riddles. In fact most really wise people do resort to riddles when people aren’t emotionally ready for the truths they wish to speak.
Nor is the Church British or American where there is a penchant for speaking clearly and distinctly and saying most things explicitly. It isn’t that he “refuses to say so.” Its just that he is not prepared to speak of complicated matters in the clear and distinct way that some nay-sayers impertinently seem to demand of him. In fact he has said everything that he wantedto say … its just that those not ready for change are unable to see it clearly just yet.

This looks to be the very mistake that the 4C have made .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What makes such a conscience a good one?

If you do not agree I suggest looking up a good commentary on the Catechism where it deals with “invincible ignorance” even after adequate attempts at formation have been made.
Prummer may be helpful also, though I only operate from memory as I no longer have his book.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t understand your first sentence. It’s not an either-or, it’s a both-and. The consequence of mortal (mortal, not ‘true’. Both mortal and venial sins are true sins) sin is separation from God. PART of that consequence of separation is that the person, not being in a state of grace, should not partake of communion. .

I see an error in terms here. The only sin that separates s from God so that we are not in a state of grace is actual sin, not objective grave matter. Grave matter is only one element of mortal sin. However, when it comes to communion, the Church has considered only whether there is objective sin. A person could be in a second marriage, no annulment, and still be in a state of grace, as God judges.

 

[pnewton]

This is a slap in the face to my mother and those like her who knew that even if they FELT this was their true marriage, submitted to the 2000 year truth of the Catholic Church humbly and managed to accept the sacrifice that went along with not being able to receive until/unless the situation was regularized (in her case, at the death of my father).

I am sympathetic to this motivation, and I suspect it accounts for a lot of the resistance. However, human though it may be, it is not the way God works. It is classic Peter in John 21. Even he needed to be reminded that God does not give us all the same path and his mercy to one is not for anyone else to gainsay.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t mean this to come off disrespectfully…

OK.

The questions were really:
“Can you define what you mean by a permanent state of mortal sin.”
“Where you have drawn this terminology from.”

Re the second I cannot find any references?

Re the first I was trying to understand your definition of “a state of mortal sin” (as opposed to acts of mortal sin)". You’ve repeated your example (remarriage without annulment) but haven’t actually defined what a “state of mortal sin” actually is.

You appear to be saying it means one has lost sanctifying grace and is completely separated from God and one can only get into this state by committing an act of mortal sin. It is not clear whether that act be “objective mortal sin” or just “mortal sin”.

You’ve also introduced a newish phrase “objective mortal sin” which I have not come across in any Magisterial document or the Catechisms. I suggest the phrase is internally contradictory and not totally helpful … where did you get it from? I presume you really mean “grave matter” or “material sin”?

For the rest, your analysis of Communion and the remarried, your use of “mortal sin”, while consistent with the US Baltimore Catechism (based on the 1917 Canon Law) is not fully consistent with the clarifications made in the Magisterial Vatican Catechism of 1995.
You will I think find that the better phrase to use in your analysis is “grave sin” (i.e. material sin only).
In which case we cannot always assume loss of sanctifying grace and separation from God re the irregularly remarried even if sexually active.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

"n the new interview, Spaemann says that Catholics should trust the teaching of Scripture and the Church, which the dubia defend. He quotes St Peter’s words to Jesus, when Jesus asks if the disciples will abandon Him: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

If the “dead” “teaching” of Scripture and the Church is ultimately only correctly interpreted by the authority of a living successor of Peter then Catholics should perhaps trust the authoritative teachings of the current Peter.

Given that Jesus is no longer bodily present to guide His Church directly perhaps Mr Spaemann would have done better to quote Jesus’s words to Peter rather than the other way around, “You are Peter and on on this rock I will build my Church.”

 

[KSU]

This is so basic and tautologically true as not to need saying surely.

The agreement that dogma has not changed does need to be acknowledged in order to isolate and reduce the disagreement to a matter of Church discipline.

But what “dogma” exactly is it you are putting in the spotlight?

**The dogma Christ Himself gave us in Matthew 19:

3.Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’

4.He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female

5.and that He said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?

6.They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’

7.They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’

8.He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.

9.Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’ **

How can anyone be in any further doubt given his endorsement of the Argentinian Bishop’s Guidelines?

**Because you can’t cite anything in the Argentinian Bishop’s Guidelines that states priests now are permitted to ignore the very clear, infallible teaching governing the grant of Communion to adulterers as defined by Christ, or to override or substitute their judgments for that of a Tribunal. You can’t even cite one example in the Bishop’s Guidelines of a situation where priests are now permitted to consider giving Communion to adulterers. How many times, old friend, do you and I have to rehash this point? **

I don’t believe I have knowingly opined [that A.L. changed Church discipline to permit a priest in the internal forum to substitute his judgement for that of a Marriage Tribunal.]

You have no choice but to take that position when you acknowledge that dogma has not changed, i.e., you thus agree that all that’s left to change is Church discipline concerning a priest’s authority in the internal forum to permit him to find the first marriage illicit. How else could a priest permit the reception of Communion unless the first marriage was authoritatively deemed by the priest in the internal forum to be illicit? Surly you are not arguing that adulterers (as defined by dogma) who have gone through an internal forum process are now permitted to receive Communion unless you also say that A.L. changed Church discipline to permit a priest in the internal forum to substitute his judgement for that of a Marriage Tribunal.

Well its fairly clear that Pope Francis sees no intrinsic barring of Communion for some of those in irregular marriages where the Tribunal process has not worked properly.

Nope, that is not clear at all. Please cite the section in A.L. where it says that.

That may require changing of some Canon Law rules MAY require? No, it would most certainly require it, but don’t hold your breath for it to happen.

Why is polite refusal to be explicit evil in some way? Jesus spoke in riddles, Buddha spoke in riddles. In fact most really wise people do resort to riddles when people aren’t emotionally ready for the truths they wish to speak.

Well, since all I ever got from you for the last year are riddles, you must be really wise and I must not be emotionally ready for the truths wise men speak.

Nor is the Church British or American where there is a penchant for speaking clearly and distinctly and saying most things explicitly. It isn’t that he “refuses to say so.” Its just that he is not prepared to speak of complicated matters in the clear and distinct way that some nay-sayers impertinently seem to demand of him. In fact he has said everything that he wanted to say … its just that those not ready for change are unable to see it clearly just yet.

Point, set, match for me.

This looks to be the very mistake that the 4C have made .

** Mistake?! Any one of the four Cardinals, or any one of the thousands of other prelates and theologians around the world who agree with them have forgotten more relevant theology about this issue than you and I will ever have, combined. A really wise person will cast his lot with them rather than your contention that the four plus thousand others just are not ready for change so are unable to see it clearly just yet. I have to admit though that thousands of Orthodox and Protestant bishops agree with you. Nevertheless, millions of Catholics like the aforesaid prelates and theologians will go slogging ahead for another 2,000 years. **