Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

This from St JP2 directly addresses your questions about purpose of amendment and the efficacy of confession etc…
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP960322.HTM
An excerpt:

As for your #5 we do not know who is damned. The discipline and pastoral guidance are what they are, and we should live our lives by the Church’s guidance.
We should not tempt God’s good graces. And so assumptions about the state of one’s soul, and especially assumptions about the state of other’s souls, are a real problem for our spiritual life.

If you state that a specific group of people have committed mortal sin then you must accept you hold they are all separated from God without exception until a valid confession is made.

This has been clearly stated a number of times on this thread that adulterers are in this position.

The Church simply does not teach such a thing sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

These are not normally venial sins. That’s all we are saying.

Always grave matter, very often a mortal sin.

And I am saying those in irregular marriages cannot wholus bolus be accused of having committed mortal sin or being in a state of mortal sin which has been clearly stated here and affirmed by others a number of times. It is a somewhat appalling judgement that even a confessor cannot make for a given penitent.

The correct way to state what you and others likely mean is to speak of “grave sin” or acts of grave matter. As you rightly now say, these acts may be venial or mortal and nobody is in any position to say which it is or even offer a likelihood because we are not God.

Neither is barring from Communion based on this type of judgement.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yet we do generally expect people to keep their mortgage contracts. We do not have tribunals to determine whether they were mature enough to sign the documents or understand what they were promising (though that might be a good idea if done beforehand.) That may be changing, though, with the education loan crisis. We may discover that those are also promises that cannot be kept. But that’s off topic to the thread. Sorry.

I think it’s apposite. Immaturity at the time of contracting marriage is in fact a significant ground for finding that a bond never existed if it can be proven sufficiently.
We marry the likely immature hoping for for the best, that they will get the extended family and communal support they need to actually establish the bond at a later time, but all to often such support is absent and they founder. All my clerical professors, including my Canon Law teacher, privately opined that they did not really believe the bond was established immediately for many young couples they married. That was back in the 1980s. Pope Francis of course recently said the same.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

:whacky:

“I would suggest we do not know what Jeusus knew.”

You are not sure Jesus forgave her?
What then is the point of the pericope?

 

[carn]

You are not sure Jesus forgave her?
What then is the point of the pericope?

I think any speculation about interpreting this part of scripture is only secondary to the actual problem; and that is that at least for verbatim millenias past the Church required for valid confession intent to sin no more.

As long as sex in a “irregular/second marriage” has to be qualified as adultery (not in the sense that necessary couple is necessary cupable for the sin), a valid confession of someone in such “marriage” must have the intent to stop having sex with the civil partner, if in any way he might have the idea that it might be sinful (which is practically unavoidable to realize by just a quick glance at respective Church teaching).

And that is just the same with the alcoholic; if his alcoholism is sinful, then confession will only be valid, if he has the intent to stop drinking; he might fail at that, but the intent must be present at least during the confession.

And unless this part of millenias old Church teaching about the need for an intention to sin no more is changed, it is very much impossible to have a valid confession if one has no intent to stop intimacy with the civil partner from “second marriage”.

(This is to be distinguished from someone having the intent but is still aware about potential failure or complicating factors; e.g. a catholic in “second marriage” with children might have all the intent of the world to not have sex, but civil partner then “romantically” engages with a “Either sex or divorce and i take the children and make sure they never hear a good word about catholicism”; the intent then might have been present during confession but would crumble in face of this “lovely” and “affectionate” attempt at intimacy and that might imply reduced culpability and might result in several similar repeating confessions, somewhat similar to the repeatedly failing alcohol addict)

 

[Stat_Crux]

Fr. Michelet’s comment was on “persons who do not know they are in grave sin” and the “divorced and remarried”. He said “the confessor has the duty to straighten out the deformed conscience, for the sake of reforming it; this can take time and therefore require adequate spiritual accompaniment.”

From Catechism 1589, Knowledge and consent means: “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.”

We agree on this. What you have said is entirely consistent with the argument that the civilly divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion. Fr Michelet’s argument is honest and with a good intention. But the way it is formulated contains the same ambiguities in AL that are causing so much confusion and being exploited.

The issue comes when we say “persons who do not know they are in grave sin” and the “divorced and remarried”. A Catholic having had a Sacramental Marriage, civilly divorced and remarried will have had sufficient formation and wedding preparation to know what the Church teaches. A confessor does indeed have the duty to guide the couple using the Gospels as a model. Historically this has always been done before Communion can be received, as to receive in a state or mortal sin would count as the sin of sacrilege for the couple receiving and the Priest in giving.

Also, by “It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” does not endorse those civilly divorced and remarried in stable, long-term relationships who consciously and repeatedly engage in sexual activity from a naturalistic/instinctive desire to express their emotional union and/or have children. Whilst it’s understandable that two people in a relationship who love each other would wish to express that love physically, the Church has consistently taught that to do so whilst still married to a different person in the eyes of God is gravely sinful. It would be to have all of the pleasure of a Marriage, without the responsibility and lifelong commitment of an actual Marriage.

The concern many now have is that, under the present confusion and ambiguous wording, is that the text could be exploited to present a wholly new and novel interpretation. One which states simply that “conscience is king” regardless of that conscience’s formation, and that the Priest does not have a duty to correct if that conscience causes people to act contrary to the Gospel. For example, while some are saying that this wording allows Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried in extreme/exceptional cases, others are already using it as a justification to allow anyone to have Communion regardless of their state in life. For example:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30063

 

[Vico]

We agree on this. What you have said is entirely consistent with the argument that the civilly divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion. Fr Michelet’s argument is honest and with a good intention. But the way it is formulated contains the same ambiguities in AL that are causing so much confusion and being exploited.

The issue comes when we say “persons who do not know they are in grave sin” and the “divorced and remarried”. A Catholic having had a Sacramental Marriage, civilly divorced and remarried will have had sufficient formation and wedding preparation to know what the Church teaches. A confessor does indeed have the duty to guide the couple using the Gospels as a model. Historically this has always been done before Communion can be received, as to receive in a state or mortal sin would count as the sin of sacrilege for the couple receiving and the Priest in giving.

Also, by “It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” does not endorse those civilly divorced and remarried in stable, long-term relationships who consciously and repeatedly engage in sexual activity from a naturalistic/instinctive desire to express their emotional union and/or have children. Whilst it’s understandable that two people in a relationship who love each other would wish to express that love physically, the Church has consistently taught that to do so whilst still married to a different person in the eyes of God is gravely sinful. It would be to have all of the pleasure of a Marriage, without the responsibility and lifelong commitment of an actual Marriage.

The concern many now have is that, under the present confusion and ambiguous wording, is that the text could be exploited to present a wholly new and novel interpretation. One which states simply that “conscience is king” regardless of that conscience’s formation, and that the Priest does not have a duty to correct if that conscience causes people to act contrary to the Gospel. For example, while some are saying that this wording allows Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried in extreme/exceptional cases, others are already using it as a justification to allow anyone to have Communion regardless of their state in life. For example:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30063

You asserted something which is not necessarily true: “will have had sufficient formation and wedding preparation to know what the Church teaches”.

It is possible for a Catholic to be canonically married without a Catholic priest, and also there are converts to consider. Some Catholics have stated that they did not receive marriage preparation.

It they did receive that preparation and understood it, then those are not included in the group that the statement is referring to.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think any speculation about interpreting this part of scripture is only secondary to the actual problem; and that is that at least for verbatim millenias past the Church required for valid confession intent to sin no more.

As long as sex in a “irregular/second marriage” has to be qualified as adultery (not in the sense that necessary couple is necessary cupable for the sin), a valid confession of someone in such “marriage” must have the intent to stop having sex with the civil partner, if in any way he might have the idea that it might be sinful (which is practically unavoidable to realize by just a quick glance at respective Church teaching).

And that is just the same with the alcoholic; if his alcoholism is sinful, then confession will only be valid, if he has the intent to stop drinking; he might fail at that, but the intent must be present at least during the confession.

And unless this part of millenias old Church teaching about the need for an intention to sin no more is changed, it is very much impossible to have a valid confession if one has no intent to stop intimacy with the civil partner from “second marriage”.

(This is to be distinguished from someone having the intent but is still aware about potential failure or complicating factors; e.g. a catholic in “second marriage” with children might have all the intent of the world to not have sex, but civil partner then “romantically” engages with a “Either sex or divorce and i take the children and make sure they never hear a good word about catholicism”; the intent then might have been present during confession but would crumble in face of this “lovely” and “affectionate” attempt at intimacy and that might imply reduced culpability and might result in several similar repeating confessions, somewhat similar to the repeatedly failing alcohol addict)

While the scenario of a partner living with their spouse in an irregular marriage while resisting the temptation of desired intimacy might occur, I would suppose it is extremely rare. This opinion is based on an understanding of primal drives and human nature (indeed, the fallen nature of man).

With this in mind, the implementation of footnote 351 to the vast numbers of such cases would, in the end, likely result in its wide application in an out-of-control process. This would be nothing less than a radical change in Church doctrine.

It would be wildly naive to suppose that many in such an irregular marriage would not be highly motivated to take advantage of this process.

 

[Thomas_White]

You are not sure Jesus forgave her?
What then is the point of the pericope?

The verses say what they say. Beyond that, I do not know.

 

[gilliam]

Archbishop Coleridge told America that uncertainty is simply part of modern life.

“At times at the synod I heard voices that sounded very clear and certain but only because they never grappled with the real question or never dealt with the real facts,” he said in a recent interview. “So there’s a false clarity that comes because you don’t address reality, and there’s a false certainty that can come for the same reason.”

…

“I think what Pope Francis wants is a church that moves toward clarity and certainty on certain issues after we’ve grappled with the issues, not before,” he continued. “In other words, he wants a genuine clarity and a genuine certainty rather than the artificial clarity or certainty that comes when you never grapple with the issues.”

…

Archbishop Coleridge said he agrees with a fellow Aussie, Cardinal George Pell, who said in London recently that some Catholics are “unnerved” by the debate about “Amoris Laetitia.”

“I think that’s probably the right word, and I sensed in the words of the four cardinals men who were unnerved,” Archbishop Coleridge said. “Clearly, they had been spoken to by a lot of people who were unnerved. I can understand that.”

But where Cardinal Pell went on to suggest the pope needed to offer clarity on the issue, Archbishop Coleridge said Francis is simply acting like a pastor.

The pope, he said, is “bringing out into the very public setting of the papacy what any pastor does in his parish or diocese.”

He noted that pastors are “very often dealing in a world of grays and you have to accompany people, listen to them before you speak to them, give them time and give them space, and then speak your word perhaps.”

americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/australian-archbishop-says-church-should-not-strive-false-clarity?utm_content=buffercf213&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Thomas_White]

Uncertainty is simply a part of modern secular life. In the encyclical ‘Laudato si’, Pope Francis attributes this to the cultural paradigm of our era. Uncertainty results from a discounting and ultimately a rejection of the notion of an Absolute Truth, where Reason becomes the Providence of Man. What is lacking in this paradigm is spirituality and an Objective Ethics. It is the rejection of the concept of an Absolute Truth.

We see the difficulties of a Subjective Ethics: uncertainty, confusion, lack of clarity and, in the end, moral relativism.

 

[commenter]

Uncertainty is simply a part of modern secular life. In the encyclical ‘Laudato si’, Pope Francis attributes this to the cultural paradigm of our era. Uncertainty results from a discounting and ultimately a rejection of the notion of an Absolute Truth, where Reason becomes the Providence of Man. What is lacking in this paradigm is spirituality and an Objective Ethics. It is the rejection of the concept of an Absolute Truth.

We see the difficulties of a Subjective Ethics: uncertainty, confusion, lack of clarity and, in the end, moral relativism.

What we have now is **intentional **uncertainty, and it can be contagious.
“If that lady can use the Uncertainty Principle to get out of her bad first, or second, marriage, then so can I”. Especially in America, where Equality is now practically a dogma, the argument will go, if he has a right to Communion, then no one can deny me.

It will also be extended to other things, like premarital sex, or having an affair with a married person, or for that matter, denying the Trinity.

 

[Thomas_White]

What we have now is **intentional **uncertainty, and it can be contagious.
“If that lady can use the Uncertainty Principle to get out of her bad first, or second, marriage, then so can I”. Especially in America, where Equality is now practically a dogma, the argument will go, if he has a right to Communion, then no one can deny me.

It will also be extended to other things, like premarital sex, or having an affair with a married person, or for that matter, denying the Trinity.

Precisely so. Be concerned.

 

[carn]

americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/australian-archbishop-says-church-should-not-strive-false-clarity?utm_content=buffercf213&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Also from that article:

“But there are still people who are more comfortable, for various reasons, with a more static way of thinking and speaking,” he said. “And there are people who are perhaps more comfortable in a world of black and white and who find the process of discernment, which deals in shades of gray, messy and unnerving.”

Two things that i see often but seldom understand:

• emotionalizing of discussion; the point is not whether the 4 cardinals or other people feel “uncomfortable”; the point is whether their criticism implied by the questions is with or without merit; that is an intellectual question and whether the 4 cardinals have sleepless nights because of no answer or all the gray in the world is secondary; they are grown men and can take care of themselves
• seemingly not understanding, that gray requires black and white to be defined; i am at least for mental exercise all into diving full ahead into discernment of gray; torture suspect knowing where the victim of abduction is currently starving? sign me up for the discussion; considering whether setting Hamburg 1943 ablaze killing thousands of innocent children was necessary and ok for bringing down Hitler? should at least have been discussed by the people planning and doing it, so we can discuss it as well; drone strike wedding ceremonies to eliminate IS leaders? I truly hope people do discern there very carefully and could also offer my 2 cent, if anyone is interested; choosing between Japan invasion, starving Japan, leaving their militarism somewhat intact or dropping nukes till unconditionel surrender? messy, unnerving and gray (with strong tendencies to utter black) but i can stomach considering that; but all that is completely pointless and senseless, if there is no idea of black and white; without that one will get lost in the confusing mist of gray.

Somehow that sounds like a foreign language for me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The verses say what they say. Beyond that, I do not know.

So you do not know if the woman was forgiven even though Jesus said “I do not condemn you”.

But you are sure Jesus’s final comment was a command (not an exhortation) indicating that this forgiveness, if it was given, was conditionalising the forgiveness on the basis that she express a firm purpose of ammendment even though the pericope therefore pregnantly finishes without said firmness duly being duly uttered by the penitent?

The logic required to make this point, if it be true, does appear somewhat tortured.

If the woman was not forgiven what would the point of reporting this incident be that readers can know with certainty?

I suggest that Jesus gave the Church the Paraclete precisely so we would know the mind of Jesus on such mysteriously ambiguously worded incidents like these. And the best person to interpret Scripture is our Pope. In AL he has done so and it seems repeated lapses in brother/sister marital discipline have no end of forgiveness despite the repeated lapses in chastity, which according to your view, are grounds alone for denying true firmness of intent.

As you said of Jn 8:11 above, repeated lapses are what they are, beyond that we do not know.
The Church forgives 70x7 regardless if there is no explicit denial of an intention to change.

 

[Thomas_White]

So you do not know if the woman was forgiven even though Jesus said “I do not condemn you”.

Again, I know what the verse says. Beyond that, I do not know. With all due respect, it seems you have been all over the place in your replies to various comments. Is this perhaps a result of uncertainty in discerning a gray area of ambiguity? Inasmuch as this might in the end result in clarity, I say this with charity.

 

[KSU]

Archbishop Coleridge told America that uncertainty is simply part of modern life.

“At times at the synod I heard voices that sounded very clear and certain but only because they never grappled with the real question or never dealt with the real facts,” he said in a recent interview. “So there’s a false clarity that comes because you don’t address reality, and there’s a false certainty that can come for the same reason.”

“I think what Pope Francis wants is a church that moves toward clarity and certainty on certain issues after we’ve grappled with the issues, not before,” he continued. “In other words, he wants a genuine clarity and a genuine certainty rather than the artificial clarity or certainty that comes when you never grapple with the issues.”

Archbishop Coleridge said he agrees with a fellow Aussie, Cardinal George Pell, who said in London recently that some Catholics are “unnerved” by the debate about “Amoris Laetitia.”

“I think that’s probably the right word, and I sensed in the words of the four cardinals men who were unnerved,” Archbishop Coleridge said. “Clearly, they had been spoken to by a lot of people who were unnerved. I can understand that.”

But where Cardinal Pell went on to suggest the pope needed to offer clarity on the issue, Archbishop Coleridge said Francis is simply acting like a pastor.

The pope, he said, is “bringing out into the very public setting of the papacy what any pastor does in his parish or diocese.”

He noted that pastors are “very often dealing in a world of grays and you have to accompany people, listen to them before you speak to them, give them time and give them space, and then speak your word perhaps.”

americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/australian-archbishop-says-church-should-not-strive-false-clarity?utm_content=buffercf213&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

We have the gift of certainty; 2,000 year-old, black and white, infallible teaching. Of course our human nature makes us look for mercy and think we have found it in uncertainty “just until things become clear, of course” whenever we don’t want to lie in the beds we have made or that have been permitted to befall us.

“Mercy tempers justice by diminishing the punishment or by making its application more benign. But it cannot run counter to justice or eliminate it; for, as St. Thomas states, ‘Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; [and] justice without mercy is cruelty.’”
tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic-perspective/mercy-without-justice-is-the-mother-of-dissolution-justice-without-mercy-is-cruelty.html

Speaking only for myself, a smaller but purer 2,000 year-old Holy Mother Roman Catholic Church for me, if that’s what it takes. “His winnowing fan is in His hand.”

We should prefer the bitter-sweet certainty of our doctrinal heritage as Catholics in this life so as to attain perfect certainty and happiness in heaven for eternity. That’s what distinguishes Catholicism, for us (the men and women soldiers, the Church Militant) from all the rest–the doubtful about Christ’s “hard sayings” and promises: “Enter by the narrow gate”." For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’.”

 

[mlz]

I am so grateful that these four cardinals asked these questions because there is danger of a moral relativism creeping into the Church if this remains unresolved. There are too many interpretations out there from different bishops. I totally agree with Cardinal Pell…" there’s nothing wrong with asking questions " It is the duty of our Cardinals to ask. It troubles me that they are being ignored In prayer for all
mlz

 

[Stat_Crux]

I am so grateful that these four cardinals asked these questions because there is danger of a moral relativism creeping into the Church if this remains unresolved. There are too many interpretations out there from different bishops. I totally agree with Cardinal Pell…" there’s nothing wrong with asking questions " It is the duty of our Cardinals to ask. It troubles me that they are being ignored In prayer for all
mlz

Agreed. Some people may not agree with the position the four Cardinals hold, or that they asked the questions in the first place, but personal character attacks against them as we’ve seen over the past few days are uncharitable, unmerciful and ignore the concerns of a great many Catholics (on both sides of the debate) who want to know officially what AL is actually teaching. Such attacks on their character and intentions also ignore actually answering their questions, which impairs the credibility of their position in refusing the engage in the debate.

You’re not alone in your prayers. By the Grace of God this situation will come to some resolution that will build up Christ’s Church, and not compromise it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Again, I know what the verse says. Beyond that, I do not know.

Yet when challenged you seem no longer able to share your knowing re any of our reasonable questions and tell us what the content and basis of your knowing is . We’re not looking for absolute truth by “knowing” but you do seem to “know” enough to confidently quote the verse to justify the unforgivability of regular lapses of chastity.
Or am I mistaken on this?

…it seems you have been all over the place in your replies to various comments. Is this perhaps a result of uncertainty in discerning a gray area of ambiguity?

I was not aware of this. Can you instance one such reply you speak of?

It does seem clear below that a number of responders seem to have gotten upset with me for things I never actually said and. If I have done the same to others by all means lets look at that if you wish.