Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Tantum_ergo]

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

I thought that Amoris Laetitia was written not for the pastors, but for all.

TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

Sounds like it’s time to call out the CCC:

SIN, definition thereof, part one From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Sin, the definition of, part II
IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

 

[commenter]

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.

.

Given that the pope is the Vicar of Christ, I trust his judgement on which matters need to be answered publicly. We don’t know what, if any, answer was made privately. When it comes to public answers, there are always other things going on that we don’t know about, that for the good of the Church have to be taken into account before any “public” answer.

On the other hand, I have major concerns about people apparently annointed by the media as “friends of the pope”; apparently a new rank of Holy Orders. They are holding press conferences, interviews, etc, where their opinions are given somewhat papal weight.

My preference is that public responses come either from the pope, or his designated administrator. But if he deems no public response is appropriate to a given communication, I accept that.

 

[pianistclare]

Given that the pope is the Vicar of Christ, I trust his judgement on which matters need to be answered publicly. We don’t know what, if any, answer was made privately. When it comes to public answers, there are always other things going on that we don’t know about, that for the good of the Church have to be taken into account before any “public” answer.

On the other hand, I have major concerns about people apparently annointed by the media as “friends of the pope”; apparently a new rank of Holy Orders. They are holding press conferences, interviews, etc, where their opinions are given somewhat papal weight.

My preference is that public responses come either from the pope, or his designated administrator. But if he deems no public response is appropriate to a given communication, I accept that.

Me too.

 

[Thomas_White]

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

What of the teaching authority of the Church when a person recognizes they are committing the grave sin of adultery but nevertheless is permitted to receive Holy Communion? I do not understand why this would be permitted.

 

[KSU]

Given the nature of the five questions the cardinals presented to the pope, the issue is clearly doctrinal; it is not merely a question of discipline. Discipline may be the application of doctrine in individual circumstances, but if the doctrines are not understood how can they be applied?

Ender

Right:thumbsup:, the issue is a matter of doctrine, not of mere discipline. But because Pope Francis and the entire Catholic universe agree that A.L. can not change doctrine, we are left with the supposition that the change hinted at by A.L. in footnotes must of necessity be one of discipline.

Since the days leading up to the Synod, the bishops of the world and Catholic theologian bloggers, on both sides of the issue, knew that the forthcoming debate would center on this question: Are there situations where non-abstinent people in irregular marriages may receive Communion by a change in discipline without violating doctrine?

So, ever since then in Forum debates I have been using the tactic of narrowing a debate to an examination of the discipline it would require to make the change by means of the internal forum. I do that in order to demonstrate that it can’t be done without violating Church doctrine (in this case dogma).

In short, because after examination, the new powers and authority of the internal forum hinted at by A.L. are shown to require a change in doctrine, the answer to the Synodal question about discipline emboldened above seems to be , “No.”

 

[Ender]

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.

Which of these three factors could we say is not present in the case where the situation is discussed with a priest? Not grave matter certainly, nor it would seem freedom of the will, that would surely be present as well. Full knowledge then? But if the situation is fully reviewed with a priest how could that be missing? It seems that all of the factors would be present. What seems to be missing is the concession that continued sexual relations constitute adultery.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

Which of these three factors could we say is not present in the case where the situation is discussed with a priest? Not grave matter certainly, nor it would seem freedom of the will, that would surely be present as well. Full knowledge then? But if the situation is fully reviewed with a priest how could that be missing? It seems that all of the factors would be present. What seems to be missing is the concession that continued sexual relations constitute adultery.

Ender

It’s a matter between priest and penitent.

As a simple example, a non-Catholic spouse may not accept a Catholic spouse ending conjugal relations. Even subtly, the Catholic party may feel pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations, and be afraid to bring up the topic with his or her spouse out of fear of the consequences.

That pressure alone, or fear, may mitigate full freedom of the will. Note the CCC entry: “complete consent”, which means just that.

But again it’s a private matter for the confessional, in addition to working with a priest.

The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me. I have never encountered such thinking in the confessional, in any of my 19 years since reverting back to the faith of my youth. And I have been a regular penitent in parishes, abbeys, religious communities.

 

[JimG]

If the ambiguous interpretations of A.L are not clarified, here is how this could play out:

Some bishops issue guidelines which allow for communion in such cases. Some bishops issue guidelines which do not. In some jurisdictions, the internal forum may effectively supplant the tribunal in some cases, in effect allowing persons in such second unions to decide the matter for themselves.

There will continue to be much discussion of which interpretation is correct and which is incorrect, which is in accord with doctrine, and which is not. In the meantime, those who wish to allow for communion for those in second marriages with no decree of nullity of the first and continuing sexual relations in the second, will have effectively achieved their objective. Ambiguity provides freedom to do what you wanted all along.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If the ambiguous interpretations of A.L are not clarified, here is how this could play out:

Some bishops issue guidelines which allow for communion in such cases. Some bishops issue guidelines which do not. In some jurisdictions, the internal forum may effectively supplant the tribunal in some cases, in effect allowing persons in such second unions to decide the matter for themselves.

There will continue to be much discussion of which interpretation is correct and which is incorrect, which is in accord with doctrine, and which is not. In the meantime, those who wish to allow for communion for those in second marriages with no decree of nullity of the first and continuing sexual relations in the second, will have effectively achieved their objective. Ambiguity provides freedom to do what you wanted all along.

I believe this is why the pope WILL answer the dubia. The style of ambiguity is one that is unfamiliar to us with previous popes in our lifetime. Should the next pontiff not be of the same style, there will be an immense pressure to clarify these types of issues. If Francis is encouraging a softer, more merciful approach which I charitably assume to be the case, then he would not want to risk a future 180 on some of his top priorities. To prevent that, a clarification emphasizing mercy but affirming doctrine and certain truths will need to come from him.

He could learn from Obama’s mistakes here…

 

[Tomdstone]

The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me. .

Do you think that there are any cases when adultery would not be a sin?

 

[tseleehw]

I believe this is why the pope WILL answer the dubia. The style of ambiguity is one that is unfamiliar to us with previous popes in our lifetime. Should the next pontiff not be of the same style, there will be an immense pressure to clarify these types of issues. If Francis is encouraging a softer, more merciful approach which I charitably assume to be the case, then he would not want to risk a future 180 on some of his top priorities. To prevent that, a clarification emphasizing mercy but affirming doctrine and certain truths will need to come from him.

He could learn from Obama’s mistakes here…

I have often thought that this could be a very real possibility in the future - if Pope Francis takes the path of not giving any definitive answers or clarifications about AL, he risks a future Pope, maybe even the next Pope directly after him, clarifying AL himself, and it might not be how Pope Francis would have liked it to be interpreted…

 

[KSU]

The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me. I have never encountered such thinking in the confessional, in any of my 19 years since reverting back to the faith of my youth. And I have been a regular penitent in parishes, abbeys, religious communities.

I hope and pray that’s not true; that it’s just your sincere impression. Otherwise it would mean that your absolutions over the past 19 years were based on your priests’ unclear understandings of your sin.

In each and every case over the last sixty-some years, I never got the impression that a confessor wasn’t basing his absolution on black and white definitions of what is sinful. How else would he have been able to determine that I had sinned? And they often asked questions to be sure–I am a very big sinner, you see, so I know better than you.

 

[Ender]

It’s a matter between priest and penitent.

No, it is a matter of understanding the meaning of the terms, and the doctrines they define.

As a simple example, a non-Catholic spouse may not accept a Catholic spouse ending conjugal relations. Even subtly, the Catholic party may feel pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations, and be afraid to bring up the topic with his or her spouse out of fear of the consequences.

That pressure alone, or fear, may mitigate full freedom of the will. Note the CCC entry: “complete consent”, which means just that.

Well here’s the problem: you’re suggesting it’s ok not to abstain from sin if we feel pressure from others to continue it. Is this what we tell teens who feel pressured to have sex? It’s ok to give in to that pressure? Should we succumb to peer pressure because we don’t want to feel ostracized? Since when are we justified in sinning just because others want us to? By this standard we could excuse most of our sins, even though the church takes a different view of the matter.Only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances…(JPII, Veritatis Splendor)
Always and under all circumstances presumably includes “pressure”.

The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me.

You mean like “always” and “under all circumstances”? What unfortunately is no longer astounding to me is the willingness to believe that absolutes do not exist, and that pretty much everything is simply a matter of individual choice.

Ender

 

[RosyAnne]

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.

That’s exactly right and in fact, I would say the current crisis we face today has roots in the rejection of Humanae Vitae.

I believe this is why the pope WILL answer the dubia. The style of ambiguity is one that is unfamiliar to us with previous popes in our lifetime. Should the next pontiff not be of the same style, there will be an immense pressure to clarify these types of issues. If Francis is encouraging a softer, more merciful approach which I charitably assume to be the case, then he would not want to risk a future 180 on some of his top priorities. To prevent that, a clarification emphasizing mercy but affirming doctrine and certain truths will need to come from him.

He could learn from Obama’s mistakes here…

I agree with this too. Clarity is essential for many reasons, but particularly this.

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-compares-treatment-of-four-cardinals-to-soviet-regime

Bishop Schneider referred to the numerous attacks that the four Princes of the Church have suffered after their dubia was published. The questions still remain unanswered by Pope Francis.

“The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now,” Bishop Schneider said. “We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group.”

Schneider went to say that “dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else - that is practically like a regime.” Schneider brought up his experience in Russia, where he was born in the time of the Soviet Union. His parents were sent by Stalin to work camps, or “Gulags,” after the Second World War. “If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia — questions — of the Cardinals.”

“This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘dialogue of culture’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad,” Bishop Schneider added.

“If the Pope does not answer, the next step will be recourse to prayer, to supernatural means,” Schneider said, “to pray for the enlightenment of the Pope and that he will gain courage.”

 

[OraLabora]

you’re suggesting it’s ok not to abstain from sin if we feel pressure from others to continue it.

Nowhere have I suggested that it is OK to not abstain from sin.

I said that there are mitigating factors that reduce culpability. CCC 2352:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

All I am saying is what the CCC says. Are you saying that a catechism promulgated by a saint is wrong?

I hope and pray that’s not true; that it’s just your sincere impression. Otherwise it would mean that your absolutions over the past 19 years were based on your priests’ unclear understandings of your sin.

In each and every case over the last sixty-some years, I never got the impression that a confessor wasn’t basing his absolution on black and white definitions of what is sinful. How else would he have been able to determine that I had sinned? And they often asked questions to be sure–I am a very big sinner, you see, so I know better than you.

That’s a pretty damning statement against my confessors, the current one of which is a very orthodox monk of the Solesmes congregation who has special training to hear confessions, and who from time to time is loaned to St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome to hear confessions in French.

In any event none of my confessors have ever failed to recognize the black-and-white nature of sin. What they have recognized is that culpability isn’t always so black-and-white.

Again, this has been the constant teaching of the Church. See the CCC quote above, or even the Baltimore Catechism:

1. What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
   To make a sin mortal these three things are needed:

the thought, desire, word, action, or omission must be seriously wrong or considered seriously wrong;
the sinner, must be mindful of the serious wrong;
the sinner must fully consent to it.

Some people here seem to be suggesting that they’re in a position to determine the culpability of another penitent based solely on the type of sin itself. That is black-and-white thinking.

That is not the teaching of the Church. The only place for that judgement to be made is in the confessional, to which we are not privy unless it is our own sin. Again, matter is objective. culpability is subjective and none of us here except for the couple of priests on the forum have the training to put them in a position to make that judgement about sinners, be they D&R or anyone else.

 

[KSU]

That’s a pretty damning statement against my confessors,

** That’s why I would never even imply such a thing; but you sure did when you said
“The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me. I have never encountered such thinking in the confessional, in any of my 19 years since reverting back to the faith of my youth.”

But now that I’ve called you on it, you are tying to correct what you said to, " What they have recognized is that culpability isn’t always so black-and-white." Good, we now understand each other. **

 

[Thomas_White]

It appear you are at best grasping at straws in an attempt to maintain your untenable position:

It’s a matter between priest and penitent.

As a simple example, a non-Catholic spouse may not accept a Catholic spouse ending conjugal relations. Even subtly, the Catholic party may feel pressured to continue engaging in conjugal relations, and be afraid to bring up the topic with his or her spouse out of fear of the consequences.

That pressure alone, or fear, may mitigate full freedom of the will. Note the CCC entry: “complete consent”, which means just that.

Full freedom of the will was mitigated by Original Sin. It is restored only by grace and not (to be necessarily blunt) by pressure from a person wishing to engage in adultery.

 

[OraLabora]

That’s why I would never even imply such a thing; but you sure did when you said
“The black-and-white thinking on this forum astounds me. I have never encountered such thinking in the confessional, in any of my 19 years since reverting back to the faith of my youth.”

But now that I’ve called you on it, you are tying to correct what you said to, " What they have recognized is that culpability isn’t always so black-and-white." Good, we now understand each other.

I reread what I wrote and it still seems obvious to me that I was speaking about culpability, as I was talking about freedom of the will (culpability, subjective) and not the objective gravity of the sin. There was no back-pedalling on my part, nor correction necessary. The above is completely consistent with my previous post.

The statement you quoted needs to be read in the context of the rest of the post.