Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[TMC]

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.

I am simply a poster here, just like you. If you don’t want to hear people’s opinions, why do you post here? You simply say I am wrong, but how is it that you are so certain about what happened in the Church for 2000 years?

 

[TMC]

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.

Really? Are you sure about that? I don’t think that people change that much, frankly. People today are much like people in the past, and vice versa. And I certainly don’t think people were simple in the past.

 

[TMC]

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.

OK, so why not let them work through that with their priest, confessor and/or pastor? What upsets you so much about AL, if you agree that we can not tell sitting here whether these people are in a state of grace or not?

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.

Who is saying people should receive when not in a state of grace? I think that AL is saying that some people may be in an irregular marriage, and still in a state of grace–that it is not black and white that those situations are mutually incompatible.

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’.

Are you asking me what the Church teaches? The Church teaches Nay. But whether a person in an irregular marriage is in grave sin destroying grace or not is a “Maybe.” That is my read.

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?

No, I do not believe this teaching was changed by AL. I would comment, however, that if discernment of the state of your own soul is not difficult for you, then you are a rare person.

 

[OraLabora]

Is adultery then only sometimes a mortal sin? How is it that this interpretation does not conflict with Church doctrine?

Adultery is always grave matter. Please go back and read the CCC on sin. For any sin to bear mortal culpability, three factors must be present: grave matter, full knowledge, and freedom of the will.

This has been constant Catholic doctrine. Adultery is not an exception. There are no exceptions. Even killing, which is intrinsically evil, is not always “mortal sin”.

 

[graciew]

How is it that a Catholic in an irregular second marriage lacked either “knowledge” or “freedom of will” when they began the relationship?.

There are persons who sleep under a tin roof and card,and it is their home. Some grow flowers in tins and paint the tins with pool paint they find in the street. And it looks beautiful . And we can exchange recipes , and so many are so patient when we just do not get it… And we learn and we love and we cry and we grow and God knows how forgiving so many persons are…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is it not true that any successor of Peter also bound by Scriptures, Tradition, the Magisterium and the teachings of the successors of Peter before him?

Is it not true that Scripture is often ambiguous re applicability to situations encountered after the ink dried…which is why even the devil can quote it to his own purposes? Hence the need for a living authority to interpret what both tradition and Scripture mean in our own times.
That charism is not a democratic one.
When the majority of Cardinals agree with C. Burke I might start wondering whether Jesus’s promise to Peter has failed. Until then let’s be humble and accept we untrained lay people don’t need to understand but obey.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

KSU:

The Purpose of Jesus’ Parables
(Matthew 13:10-17)
10As soon as Jesus was alone with the Twelve and those around Him, they asked Him about the parable.

11And He told them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is expressed in parables, 12so that,

‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding

.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Additionally, I believe that people used to have to confess in public.

Thanks, Mongo, for reminding me of this, as it gave me the last piece of the puzzle to put this all together, which I will share.

Now, imagine you are in the olden days… People had to confess to the whole church and perform a looooong penance before being able to receive the Eucharist again. Suddenly, confessions become private and anonymous! What!!! What about your friend who was unable to confess his sin because of the pain it would cause his family, who has since died? Penance a are much shorter now? What about your cousin, who died before his penance was completed? What does this all mean? Why is it happening?

That’s how I felt about AL. I’m still not happy about it, but accept that that is just my own personal feeling rather than an objective reaction. Objectively, well, it’s not up to me, right?

So, how does this work?

Say that Joe, a non-practicing, non-catechized Catholic, marries Jane but their marriage fails because it was built on sand (a reason which would allow for a decree of nullify if proven) rather than on a rock. They had married in the Church because their mothers both thought it was so beautiful. The priest was the sort of person who tended to be a little too accommodating and went along with all this.

Their marriage fails, and some years later, Joe meets Kim, and eventually they decide to marry. Joe is still not practicing or knowledgeable about the Faith, a new priest has come in who refuses to accommodate his mother, and they marry in Kim’s Protestant church.

As the children come along, Kim starts practicing her faith more, and Joe begins to feel a pull to Catholicism. Joe then finds he is unable to get an annulment because (it all happened in another country, all the witnesses have died, or some other reason).

1. Now, the first marriage either is sacramental or is not sacramental: *This reality is unaffected by any work the Tribunal does. *The Tribunal is to *discover an already-existing truth, *not to create a truth.

If this is the case, then Joe could know the truth and simply be unable to prove it to a Tribunal. However, the truth that the marriage was not sacramental still exists.

1. The ministers of a marriage are the two who are marrying each other. The priest is merely a witness. When marriages take place under Catholic auspices, the Church is sort of approving them rather than conducting them. And this allows the Church to make rules: if your marriage has not been approved by the Church, you are not permitted to receive the Eucharist.
2. So, if it is a truth that Joe’s first attempt at marriage was a failure at that time, then he is free to marry. Since there is no *actual *necessity (this is only a discipline) for a priest to be present, then there is no blockage to his and Kim’s marrying sacramentally.
3. So Joe and Kim’s marriage would exist in reality as a sacramental marriage, although this reality is unknown to the Church.
4. Hence, the Tribunal is not a *necessary *aspect of sorting all this out.

I once had a written conversation in which a woman complained that Group A and Group B had committed similar infractions but received very different punishments. My correspondent was advocating that the system be changed so that everyone would receive the lesser punishment that Group B had received, to make things fair.

I suggested that Group A had received a fair punishment, which she was willing to concede. I then suggested that we consider the parable of the workers who came in at different times of the day but received the same pay at the end of the day. Obviously neither of us wanted to be like the workers who complained!

For many decades, too many people in the Church hierarchy (in the West, at least) have not encouraged vigorous catechesis and the result is that all too many Catholics are really ignorant of many aspects of the Faith. In the US, our cultural passing-down of the Faith was interrupted by many factors. The Church is a bit of a mess.

I would like to see certain changes, and this is not one of them (the reasons for which I will not go into here ) but this is the one we are getting. I hope that this explanation of my change of heart on this issue will help others.

PS: to all who were negative and dismissive of people who expressed their concerns about this change, it was through my discussions with others on this board which allowed me to come to understand how to think about this. I am really grateful to all those who commented in a helpful way on my thoughts and the thoughts of others who were/are confused about this issue as this all contributed to increased understanding on my part.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon,

what about all the previous Peters? Are we dismissing them now? Does this not go against the very point of having the magisterium?

For this position to be the only valid one wouldn’t you need to demonstrate beyond all doubt that:

1. We are dealing with unchangeable dogma not changeable application, ie disciplines.
2. That past Popes actually are substantially in disagreement with Pope Francis.
3. That the substantial disagreement is on infallible points.
4. That we correctly understand the mind of past Popes and whether their positions may have changed when facing the different conditions of later Popes.

Given we are untrained lay people I suggest we just humbly obey the support and follow the lead of the current Pope until such time as a majority of Cardinals excommunicate him.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s work “On Conscience” defines a good conscience as one where the Divine Law written upon our hearts, the “anamnesis”, and the conscience of the intellect ( conscientia), enlightened by Faith and Reason, are in harmony, that the intellect truly sees the Divine Law written upon the soul…

So, where can error be injected and have the conscience remain good? Certainly not in the Divine Law, that is not subject to error.

One can certainly come to a Judgement of conscience on matters that lack any of the elements described by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, such as Faith, or an enlightened intellect, but that cannot be considered a good judgement from a good conscience.

Thus, Blue, I still fail to see how your statement: “One may still be in “good conscience” even if that conscience is erroneous provided one has taken the trouble to inform oneself.” can be correct.

This is fairly 101 stuff for the theologically trained. It is also a tangent to this thread which are both reasons why I don’t have time to further assist sorry even though I would like to.
BTW I suggested reading a commentary on the CCC or Plummer. The CCC doesn’t go “under the bonnet” which is what you seek.

As a pointer on your unfamiliarity with the distinction between the good and the true, between the will and the intellect wrt virtue and vice see Aquinas. These are two different categories reflecting the two primary faculties of the soul. Hence a good conscience can at the same time be erroneous, and presumably a bad conscience intellectually correct.
Perhaps it is a matter of semantics… if “goodness” is understood here to mean rectitude of both intellect and will then you are correct. However it usually only refers to the rectitude of the will. The rectitude of the intellect is usually indicated by the word “correct” or “true” and the opposite is “erroneous” or “ignorant”.

 

[TCEL]

How is a person in a second, invalid marriage, supposed to make a decision to receive communion? Does he acknowledge that he is currently in a sexual relationship with someone who is not his spouse, but that is okay for some reason? Does he decide that the first marriage is not valid regardless of what a tribunal may or may not have said? Or does he simply rely on ambiguity as his best friend?

Insightful questions. It one cared enough about the Church’s authority in this issue to acquiesce to someone else’s opinion on whether one should receive Communion or not, then it seems this exception in AL would only apply to a miniscule pool of people. (Which, in and of itself, is neither an argument for nor against.) Considering how many people don’t seem to feel the need to put their decisions to contracept under Church scrutiny, why would they bother with this?

Are people pushing for divorce/remarried to receive Communion also pushing TOB? Does anyone know?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We are talking about the sacraments and mortal sin here. Jesus made things very clear. People don’t have the right to mess with that.

That’s the confusion…we are not talking mortal sin.
We are talking “grave sin”, or more correctly, serious objective disorder.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is adultery then only sometimes a mortal sin? How is it that this interpretation does not conflict with Church doctrine?

Correct, why would you believe otherwise?

What is your definition of mortal sin?

 

[patricius79]

How is a person in a second, invalid marriage, supposed to make a decision to receive communion? Does he acknowledge that he is currently in a sexual relationship with someone who is not his spouse, but that is okay for some reason? Does he decide that the first marriage is not valid regardless of what a tribunal may or may not have said? Or does he simply rely on ambiguity as his best friend?

Right. Of course, such subjective justifications for one’s objectively evil behavior are not acceptable, whether the issue is adulterous unions, or contraception, or pornography, or theft, heresy, serious neglect of prayer, or any other sin.

That’s why the dubia deserved to be answered when they were asked in private, and now deserve to be answered, now that they’ve been asked in public.

According to constant Church teaching, someone in an “irregular marriage” is in an public situation of objectively-grave habitual sin, even if there are mitigating factors.

According to the Word of God, they must separate unless there are true reasons why they cannot (such as the raising of children), and they must strive to live in complete continence.

They may receive Communion–privately, as I understand it, to avoid giving scandal–if they have repented and confessed for having violated the meaning of marriage as the sign of fidelity between Christ and the Church.

We’re all great sinners. And what we need is not false mercy, but the true mercy of Mary and Jesus.

We need to pray and promote the Rosary.

 

[gilliam]

Right. Of course, such subjective justifications for one’s objectively evil behavior are not acceptable, whether the issue is adulterous unions, or contraception, or pornography, or theft, heresy, serious neglect of prayer, or any other sin.

That’s why the dubia deserved to be answered when they were asked in private, and now deserve to be answered, now that they’ve been asked in public.

According to constant Church teaching, someone in an “irregular marriage” is in an public situation of objectively-grave habitual sin, even if there are mitigating factors.

According to the Word of God, they must separate unless there are true reasons why they cannot (such as the raising of children), and they must strive to live in complete continence.

They may receive Communion–privately, as I understand it, to avoid giving scandal–if they have repented and confessed for having violated the meaning of marriage as the sign of fidelity between Christ and the Church.

We’re all great sinners. And what we need is not false mercy, but the true mercy of Mary and Jesus.

We need to pray and promote the Rosary.

That is why the best advice for them is that they work with their priest. The idea that an Internet forum can pass judgement on anyone, no matter what we may or may not think, isn’t Catholic doctrine.

 

[Thomas_White]

OK, so why not let them work through that with their priest, confessor and/or pastor? What upsets you so much about AL, if you agree that we can not tell sitting here whether these people are in a state of grace or not?

Yet once more, the question is whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. To clarify, what this would mean is that “these people”, following discernment, perhaps with an expert priest, have concluded that a first marriage was valid and that they are therefore committing the grave sin of adultery.

Does AL provide that they nevertheless should be permitted to receive Holy Communion if it is their wish? It appears this is the case, and it is my actual concern.

Who is saying people should receive when not in a state of grace? I think that AL is saying that some people may be in an irregular marriage, and still in a state of grace–that it is not black and white that those situations are mutually incompatible.

But the language I quoted in a comment above provides that any final decision is, in every instance, left to the individual.

Are you asking me what the Church teaches? The Church teaches Nay. But whether a person in an irregular marriage is in grave sin destroying grace or not is a “Maybe.” That is my read.

I agree. Whether a person in an irregular marriage is in grave sin destroying grace is not a Maybe. This is also my read. They either are or are not in such a state.

No, I do not believe this teaching was changed by AL. I would comment, however, that if discernment of the state of your own soul is not difficult for you, then you are a rare person.

It has not been difficult for me to discern whether or not I am in the state of grace. Perhaps it is that my Catholic education began in the first grade and continued through high school. I don’t know, but I do know my teachers were members of Catholic religious orders. I am also age 71, and have learned a thing or two from personal experience. This would include a time in life when I experienced the very circumstances here in discussion. Discernment was not particularly difficult for me at that time, for the Church and its moral teaching was then very clear in its position on the matter. This was not confusing, and there was no gray area. For their own sake, people in these traumatic circumstances deserve a definitive answer for there is the possibility of further grave sin.

 

[pianistclare]

Yet once more, the question is whether a person in the state of mortal sin should be permitted to receive Holy Communion. To clarify, what this would mean is that “these people”, following discernment, perhaps with an expert priest, have concluded that a first marriage was valid and that they are therefore committing the grave sin of adultery.

Does AL provide that they nevertheless should be permitted to receive Holy Communion if it is their wish? It appears this is the case, and it is my actual concern.

But the language I quoted in a comment above provides that any final decision is, in every instance, left to the individual.

I agree. Whether a person in an irregular marriage is in grave sin destroying grace is not a Maybe. This is also my read. They either are or are not in such a state.

It has not been difficult for me to discern whether or not I am in the state of grace. Perhaps it is that my Catholic education began in the first grade and continued through high school. I don’t know, but I do know my teachers were members of Catholic religious orders. I am also age 71, and have learned a thing or two from personal experience. This would include a time in life when I experienced the very circumstances here in discussion. Discernment was not particularly difficult for me at that time, for the Church and its moral teaching was then very clear in its position on the matter. This was not confusing, and there was no gray area.** For their own sake, people in these traumatic circumstances deserve a definitive answer for there is the possibility of further grave sin.**

That’s why they consult their pastor, for whom this document was written.

 

[TCEL]

That’s why they consult their pastor, for whom this document was written.

Humanae Vitae was twenty years before my time, but I’ve heard this is what people did regarding contraception, and people would get different answers. How does that not foster division in the Body of Christ? Sure, it’s all good on the surface, but there will most certainly be fallout. It’s saying peace when there is no peace. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That’s the confusion…we are not talking mortal sin.
We are talking “grave sin”, or more correctly, serious objective disorder.

BH, I have the catechism open on my computer.

Could you please point out where it says “grave sin’ as opposed to mortal or venial because frankly, I see only mortal and venial sin listed, not 'mortal, grave, and venial”.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

BH, I have the catechism open on my computer.

Could you please point out where it says “grave sin’ as opposed to mortal or venial because frankly, I see only mortal and venial sin listed, not 'mortal, grave, and venial”.

I believe countless times bh has been refuted on the mortal vs grave terminology. You can do a search if you like.

It’s a way to keep a certain view.