Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stat_Crux said:
I’m assuming by “this” in your first sentence you’re referring to the argument that Holy Communion cannot be received by those in states of objective mortal sin. Whether that’s in the specific case of adultery or another sin the answer is the same.

It has been believed and taught now and always by the Church that being in a state of mortal sin precludes one from reception of Holy Communion. The Church has always taught that adultery is an objectively sinful action, and so is always mortally sinful.
Click to expand...
I am not going to go through this whole thing again. However, I don not agree with either of these two statements, and that does not even take into account that a person could be in a second marriage, with no annulment and not, objectively, be committing adultery.

I am open to considering anything that the Church has said on this, but nothing has ever been posted that I have not already read.
You may next try to get around it and say that it is instead a change in discipline while the doctrine remains intact, but disciplines cannot be so detached from doctrine that evil actions become admissible or even advisable (as some have suggested, it might be right to continue to engage in such activity “for the good of the children and the preservation of the union”).
Click to expand...
I am not trying to get around anything. I just accept Amortis Laetitia without assuming I know more than the Pope and two synods. I remain open to new data.
 
_Abyssinia said:
m.ncregister.com/51541/d
Click to expand...
from Dec 8th
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/08/a-gravely-critical-moment-catholic-scholars-call-on-bishops-to-support-the-four-cardinals/

‘A gravely critical moment’: Catholic scholars call on bishops to support the four cardinals

The 23 scholars include members of pontifical institutions and major universities

Twenty-three Catholic scholars and pastors, three of them Oxford University academics, have given their names to a statement in support of the “four cardinals”, after the cardinals’ request to Pope Francis to clarify his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

The scholars include Dr Robert Beddard, the former Vice-Provost of Oriel College, Oxford; Professor Luke Gormally, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life; Dr Nicholas Richardson, Sub-Warden of Merton College, Oxford; and the philosophy professors Carlos A Guerra, Paolo Pasqualucci and Claudio Pierantoni.

Most of the 23 signatories also signed a previous letter to the College of Cardinals, asking them to request clarification of Amoris Laetitia.

The statement says that the four cardinals raise “pertinent and searching questions” about whether Church teaching on the sacraments and the moral law is to be upheld. They say that if the Pope fails to reaffirm Church teaching, it may be necessary for the cardinals to “collectively approach him with some form of fraternal correction, in the spirit of Paul’s admonition to his fellow apostle Peter at Antioch”. Cardinal Burke, one of the four cardinals, has indicated that such a move might be necessary.
 
Stat_Crux said:
I’m assuming by “this” in your first sentence you’re referring to the argument that Holy Communion cannot be received by those in states of objective mortal sin. Whether that’s in the specific case of adultery or another sin the answer is the same.

It has been believed and taught now and always by the Church that being in a state of mortal sin precludes one from reception of Holy Communion. The Church has always taught that adultery is an objectively sinful action, and so is always mortally sinful. This was most recently in Veritatis Splendor, in which objective moral norms were reiterated and the errors of proportionalism, consequentialism and relativistic morality were rejected, and Familiaris Consortio which states that the divorced and remarried may not have communion because they have full awareness of their actions in engaging in sexual activity.

You may next try to get around it and say that it is instead a change in discipline while the doctrine remains intact, but disciplines cannot be so detached from doctrine that evil actions become admissible or even advisable (as some have suggested, it might be right to continue to engage in such activity “for the good of the children and the preservation of the union”).

The Holy Spirit doesn’t change its mind on what is good or evil, so regardless of whatever clever words either of us use to try and construct an argument, if the effect is that the indissolubility of marriage is doubted by Catholics or non-Catholics, or that confusion abounds in the Church about what she actually teaches on the subject, then this is already a grave failing of the state of catechesis in the church today.

We might also remember that Communion for the civilly D&R did not receive the required 2/3 vote at either the 2014 Synod on the family or its repeat in 2015.
Click to expand...
Worth noting. I’m guessing that nobody voted on footnotes.
 
pnewton said:
I am not going to go through this whole thing again.
Click to expand...
I can understand your fatigue with these kinds of debates. If it’s any consolation I find them incredibly tedious and really wish we weren’t in this situation. I don’t think this kind of confusion helps us preach the Gospel. As a convert, with the benefit of hindsight, I dread to think what impression we are all now giving to those on the outside looking in.

I hope for some clarity from the Pope on the issue, hopefully by answering the questions raised by the four Cardinals in their dubia or by another papal document. Otherwise this risks becoming the fundamental question asked by both “sides” (I’m reluctant to use that word) in the future when choosing Seminarians, Catechists, Bishops, Cardinals and perhaps even Popes.
 
Stat_Crux said:
“Accidental” is a poor choice on words on my behalf. Mea culpa, it’s 1am here and I’m trying to type quickly…

A better description would perhaps be temporary failures of resolve or “giving in” to temptation. In both cases it doesn’t justify it. I’m trying to draw a distinction in that post between a couple who try to live as brother and sister, who may experience occasional failures but have a firm intention to amend their ways and not do it again (e.g. can go to Confession, consistent with Familiaris Consortio 84), and a couple who habitually continue to engage in sexual activity with no intention of amendment or desire to live chastely.
Click to expand...
I understand the attempt to make a distinction. However, it does not ring true. Try though I have, I just cannot see how it is possible that the behavior of a couple in an irregular marriage who continue conjugal relations, however often this might occur, could be reconciled with Church doctrine. There is no such thing as a lesser mortal sin of adultery. This would be the “get out of jail free” card.

There have been a number of attempts on the thread to justify the reception of Holy Communion by those in the state of mortal sin, often by employing rationalizations and even denial. These misguided attempts–which are understandable as psychological defense mechanisms when confronted with this reality–to find a gray area that provides an acceptable justification for this practice have added confusion to ambiguity. Nothing has been persuasive.

Said with all due respect. It is solely my opinion.
 
Brendan said:
My point was that Servant of God Harden’s work is well recognized and not easily dismissed.

And it was not simply the Diaconate program, it was the Sacerdotal students as well that we required to have this text.

As an additional note, Pope John Paul II asked him to head up the development of the Vatican Catechism, but Fr Hardon declined, citing age. But he was a major contributor and editor…
Click to expand...
As I say, critical theologians do not rely on one dictionary from one man to decide a contro versial issue.

I do not believe Fr. Hardon’s role could be described as “major contributor” or “editor” though I am aware he was informally consulted on some points.
Can you quote and source for your above statement?

Strange that a man, allegedly so involved with the Vatican Catechism, came out so negatively and publicly re the Draft.

Something doesn’t seem to add up here.
 
KSU said:
Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect". …I would love to be perfect someday-- in complete control of myself.
Click to expand...
You might like to check a few good scholarly commentaries on this poorly translated passage and you will find it does not mean what you think it means. Even less should one base a spirituality on this sort of “perfection”. Hebrew understanding of perfection is very different from the Greek.
 
Stat_Crux said:
The Church has historically taught that sex outside of a valid marriage is a mortal sin as it is an objectively evil act.
Click to expand...
Sorry SC, you haven’t even made it off first base.
The Church does not teach this.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
You might like to check a few good scholarly commentaries on this poorly translated passage and you will find it does not mean what you think it means. Even less should one base a spirituality on this sort of “perfection”. Hebrew understanding of perfection is very different from the Greek.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It’s also different than German these days.😉
 
Brendan said:
There is a lot more to Church doctrine regarding reception of Holy Communion than mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Actually it isn’t about any **act **of “mortal sin” at all really.
Its about obstinate and public acts of grave matter.
In the old days we used to call this “a **state **of mortal sin”.

Banning from Communion has nothing directly to do with whether a person possesses sanctifying grace or not.
What F.C mentioned was that a divorce and remarriage objectively contradicts the union of Christ and His Church as evidenced in the Eucharist
Click to expand...
Quite right.
In fact even just Divorce alone does this. Which is why all the divorced must receive absolution before receiving Communion. Confession is not just about forgiving **acts **of grave personal sin. It also can forgive states of grave personal sin.
The reception of Holy Communion is a statement that we fully accept the doctrines of the Church and agree to abide by them, not directly oppose them.
Click to expand...
You’ve gone off the rails a bit here.
As Aquinas rightly reminds his readers, faith terminates not in doctrines about Jesus but in the person of Jesus himself.
One who is divorced and remarried is in a state, not necessarily of mortal sin, but a state that is objectively opposed to the union of Christ and His Church.
Click to expand...
Well, I think if we used old school terminology “a state of mortal sin” is pretty much what they used to call it.

However these days I believe we are encouraged to call it “an objective disorder” or a “sin of grave matter” because that makes it clearer that a person can still be sanctified in this state due to impaired culpability and other reasons.
 
What do you think Pope Francis means when he says:“time is greater than space”. And yes this is how he comes to his conclusions “they say” so this question does have meaning for the dubia
 
Thomas_White said:
No. The last nine words of John 8:11
Click to expand...
And if the woman had sinned again, would mercy have been denied? Yes, 70 X 7. The words of Jesus to the woman in adultery were about her not being condemned (that was first, if you remember), and second, an admonition to cease sinning.

I don’t know about you, but confession does not make me perfect for the rest of my life.
 
pnewton said:
And if the woman had sinned again, would mercy have been denied? Yes, 70 X 7. The words of Jesus to the woman in adultery were about her not being condemned (that was first, if you remember), and second, an admonition to cease sinning.

I don’t know about you, but confession does not make me perfect for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...
The word of Christ:

Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more." John 8:11(NAB)
 
Thomas_White said:
The word of Christ:

Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more." John 8:11(NAB)
Click to expand...
Don’t be shocked, but I am pretty sure everyone here knows who was speaking. You have said the same thing repeatedly. Saying it more doesn’t change the meaning, nor does it clarify anything. By the way, you misquoted. The verse is:

She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.”

Interestingly enough, before Jesus said he did not condemn her, and after, she did** not indicate any resolution to sin no more. Thus the words of Jesus can be interpreted as an exhortation to sin no more, or a prophecy that she was perfect and would never sin again. Either way, the forgiveness was not **based on any resolve that she voiced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top