Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

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

I believe the mess these Cardinals have got themselves into is not for asking questions.
Such Dubia apparently have a long history of being asked and an equally acceptable and long history of being ignored by the Pope if he wishes to. That is an acceptable “response”.

Unfortunately the Cardinals have started demonstrating manifest obstinacy by taking private and internal Dubia to the Catholic public to get leverage over the Magisterium after getting miffed they were ignored.

Perhaps they are the ones who should be barred from Communion in this grave matter .

 

[fin]

reported

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think any speculation about interpreting this part of scripture is only secondary to the actual problem;

Yes, that is pretty much the point pnewton and myself were communicating to TW re his interjection of Jn 8:11 into the discussion.

and that is that at least for verbatim millenias past the Church required for valid confession intent to sin no more.

Well I think I know what you are saying here but you’ve perhaps clouded the issue with a few other minor concerns. First up “individual confession” as we know it is a relatively new practise. Only in the late 007-800s did it start becoming popular due to itinerant monks from Ireland I believe. Before that, simply being an official penitent with a designated group of “grave sinners” presented at Church on Sundays during Lent and forgiven on Easter Sunday appears to have been the norm for reconciling with the Parish again. I am relying on memory though.
That ongoing penitential practice suggests a firm intention of amendment to me - even if nothing was actually said…just like the woman with Jesus in John 8. And again, if they failed after Easter they would no doubt have to go through all the sack cloth and ashes again the following year. Though some Early Church Communities tried to get really rigorist and boot them out of the Parish completely if they failed even once re the designated grave public sins.

As long as sex in a “irregular/second marriage” has to be qualified as adultery (not in the sense that necessary couple is necessary culpable for the sin),

People would I think validly disagree with this single reason analysis. There are a variety of distinct reasons why irregulars might be prohibited from receiving…some of them having nothing to do with the sort of adultery Jesus was concerned about. The very fact of being civilly married again is enough to bar from communion even if living as brother/sister.
Also, some of those sexually active may well be fornicating (or less) rather than adulterating.

a valid confession of someone in such “marriage” must have the intent to stop having sex with the civil partner,

for many yes, but not all if it is not actually adultery that is in question.
The other issue here would be whether it is possible to have such an intention while ate the same time objectively knowing that one is not actually free to implement it at the moment.
I believe Pope Francis is saying this is in fact possible - and even traditional theology/philosophy would not disagree with this being possible.

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).

I think we need to decide whether the distinction between “sin” as “objectively grave and disordered outward actions” and sin as “personal and direct intention for such outward actions” are what we are really talking about here.

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.

This, to me, demonstrates a less than robust appreciation of traditional Church teaching re Philosophy of Man, moral intention,moral freedom, outward actions, interior actions and the meaning of “a firm purpose of amendment”.
For example why would you think that an alcoholic cannot have a true intent to stop drinking before during and after his outward lapses?
Sometimes we are in a state of sin such that our secondary instrumental faculties (imagination, memory, bodily drives) at times will not obey the commands of our more primary faculties of will and intellect even though the primary faculty (the will) may be opposed to the operations of the secondary faculties that execute bodily commands. Such is the Philosophy of Man of Aquinas. We can enter states of sin and habit or circumstance where we do not at times actually have the freedom to execute our deepest intents.
Yes, we often get into those states culpably…but even after repentence these strong secondary unfreedom’s can remain.

I suggest such person’s in this state can likely rbe ecognised by their Christian example in every other aspect of their lives other than where their secondary unfreedoms clearly manifest.

This angle is clearly where Pope Francis is coming from in AL where he implies that some irregulars are in a situation where the best moral choice for the sake of the children is actually not to split up…and for some it may not be good for a spouse to refuse relations with their partner for the same reason.
While many here will not agree with this position, it is a position that has theological justification and is worthy of reasonable debate until settled.

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

You are mistaken. My reply (#873) to a comment (#854) was as follows: “I would suggest we do not know what Jesus knew.” This was the entire comment. It is not that I am “no longer able to share my knowing re any of our reasonable questions” nor was it an attempt to “confidently quote the verse (“Go [and] from now on do not sin any more” (John: 8-11)) to justify the unforgivability (sic) of regular lapses of chastity”. The comment plainly and clearly means just what it says and no more: I do not know more than that.

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

The thing to do would be for you to review your comments on the thread. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Blue_Horizon:

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.

I assure you I am not upset and would rather let it go. I do appreciate your comments. So far as AL is concerned, I will briefly provide my reservations. Others on the thread have already made this clear:

“…a pastor cannot feel it is enough simply to apply the moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations…Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin–which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such–a person can be living in God’s grace…Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits” (AL, 305).

“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments” (AL, footnote 351).

This is ambiguous. There is the lack of specificity in the phrase “help of the sacraments”.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, that is pretty much the point pnewton and myself were communicating to TW re his interjection of Jn 8:11 into the discussion.

Well I think I know what you are saying here but you’ve perhaps clouded the issue with a few other minor concerns. First up “individual confession” as we know it is a relatively new practise. Only in the late 007-800s did it start becoming popular due to itinerant monks from Ireland I believe. Before that, simply being an official penitent with a designated group of “grave sinners” presented at Church on Sundays during Lent and forgiven on Easter Sunday appears to have been the norm for reconciling with the Parish again. I am relying on memory though.
That ongoing penitential practice suggests a firm intention of amendment to me - even if nothing was actually said…just like the woman with Jesus in John 8. And again, if they failed after Easter they would no doubt have to go through all the sack cloth and ashes again the following year. Though some Early Church Communities tried to get really rigorist and boot them out of the Parish completely if they failed even once re the designated grave public sins.

People would I think validly disagree with this single reason analysis. There are a variety of distinct reasons why irregulars might be prohibited from receiving…some of them having nothing to do with the sort of adultery Jesus was concerned about. The very fact of being civilly married again is enough to bar from communion even if living as brother/sister.
Also, some of those sexually active may well be fornicating (or less) rather than adulterating.

for many yes, but not all if it is not actually adultery that is in question.
The other issue here would be whether it is possible to have such an intention while ate the same time objectively knowing that one is not actually free to implement it at the moment.
I believe Pope Francis is saying this is in fact possible - and even traditional theology/philosophy would not disagree with this being possible.

I think we need to decide whether the distinction between “sin” as “objectively grave and disordered outward actions” and sin as “personal and direct intention for such outward actions” are what we are really talking about here.

This, to me, demonstrates a less than robust appreciation of traditional Church teaching re Philosophy of Man, moral intention,moral freedom, outward actions, interior actions and the meaning of “a firm purpose of amendment”.
For example why would you think that an alcoholic cannot have a true intent to stop drinking before during and after his outward lapses?
Sometimes we are in a state of sin such that our secondary instrumental faculties (imagination, memory, bodily drives) at times will not obey the commands of our more primary faculties of will and intellect even though the primary faculty (the will) may be opposed to the operations of the secondary faculties that execute bodily commands. Such is the Philosophy of Man of Aquinas. We can enter states of sin and habit or circumstance where we do not at times actually have the freedom to execute our deepest intents.
Yes, we often get into those states culpably…but even after repentence these strong secondary unfreedom’s can remain.

Can you direct us to where St Thomas explains all this? I think all his writings are online so it should not be difficult.

I suggest such person’s in this state can likely rbe ecognised by their Christian example in every other aspect of their lives other than where their secondary unfreedoms clearly manifest.

This angle is clearly where Pope Francis is coming from in AL where he implies that some irregulars are in a situation where the best moral choice for the sake of the children is actually not to split up…and for some it may not be good for a spouse to refuse relations with their partner for the same reason.
While many here will not agree with this position, it is a position that has theological justification and is worthy of reasonable debate until settled.

There is always so much concern expressed for the second of the second relationship. What about the wife and children of the first?

 

[graciew]

There is always so much concern expressed for the second of the second relationship. What about the wife and children of the first?

 Read AL,St Francis,it is worth it.. It does really stress that children are the innocent victims . and does devote attention to this. I believe it is around point 240 and it is dealt with more than once ,particularly children.

It can be downloaded as a PDF in case you do not have it at hand.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;14339490:

There is always so much concern expressed for the second of the second relationship. What about the wife and children of the first?

 Read AL,St Francis,it is worth it.. It does really stress that children are the innocent victims . and does devote attention to this. I believe it is around point 240 and it is dealt with more than once ,particularly children.

It can be downloaded as a PDF in case you do not have it at hand.

First, I was talking about what people post. Second, the paragraph you referenced talks about the effects of bad parenting lingering on into adulthood and negatively affecting the person in marriage.

I can’t find where concern for the children of the first marriage is specifically mentioned.

 

[graciew]

graciew;14339557:

First, I was talking about what people post. Second, the paragraph you referenced talks about the effects of bad parenting lingering on into adulthood and negatively affecting the person in marriage.

I can’t find where concern for the children of the first marriage is specifically mentioned.

I said I believe because it is somewhere close. Kind of my book marks,St Francis.
So,it is around 240,where exactly I do not remember.
It is t the page ,just in case.,but the points/ bullets,

Found it: 241/242
Also 245.

 

[carn]

People would I think validly disagree with this single reason analysis.

Ok. But as long as the “second marriage” is not a true marriage, sex within such marriage is an action that should be avoided and that is a sin in case one is culpable.

The other issue here would be whether it is possible to have such an intention while ate the same time objectively knowing that one is not actually free to implement it at the moment.

Even if such a situation happens (though i am a bit pressed to come up with such a situation in which both in the “second marriage” are catholics and have intent to avoid the sin), that does not change that one must have intent to at least try. Just because it might be actually impossible to do what is right, does not change that one should still honestly and faithfully try.

I believe Pope Francis is saying this is in fact possible - and even traditional theology/philosophy would not disagree with this being possible.

I can come up with scenarios at least possibly being that in which only one spouse is trying to live as catholic with the other not trying or not being catholic at all and being to some extent not helpful (e.g. “Sex or divorce and i take the children” could reduce seriously the ability to act freely with the one adressed such way and could be expected beforehand).

But i come up empty with a couple with both trying to live as catholic; trying and failing, yes; but not prior certain knowledge of impossibility; they are both willing, so with a combination of seperate beds, locks, chastity belts, fleeing into another room for prayer and careful choice of clothing there should be a non-zero chance to not fail daily.

I think we need to decide whether the distinction between “sin” as “objectively grave and disordered outward actions” and sin as “personal and direct intention for such outward actions” are what we are really talking about here.

I do not think this is that relevant for the problem of intent to sin no more. Because to avoid sin, the person in questions needs to be told, what sin is; so the “second marriage” spouse will get the information one way or another, that since its no true marriage, no sex should actually take place; and then the person knows that any sex is at least potentially a sin and should have therefore have intent to avoid at least that sex, that is actually a sin.

So we still end with only having valid confessions if the person has some intent to avoid the sex within the “second marriage”; if person fails, confession is still possible; but the intent to avoid has to exist.

For example why would you think that an alcoholic cannot have a true intent to stop drinking before during and after his outward lapses?
Sometimes we are in a state of sin such that our secondary instrumental faculties (imagination, memory, bodily drives) at times will not obey the commands of our more primary faculties of will and intellect even though the primary faculty (the will) may be opposed to the operations of the secondary faculties that execute bodily commands. Such is the Philosophy of Man of Aquinas. We can enter states of sin and habit or circumstance where we do not at times actually have the freedom to execute our deepest intents.
Yes, we often get into those states culpably…but even after repentence these strong secondary unfreedom’s can remain.

I agree. But that does not change that for confession we must have intent to avoid sin, for which we might have to engage those “secondary unfreedom’s” to overcome them hopefully. Often we’ll fail; but without intent, it does not work.

and for some it may not be good for a spouse to refuse relations with their partner for the same reason.

I cannot see such a situation for two catholics both with intent to avoid sin. Cause why should they split up, if both are willing to avoid sex if that can be somehow achieved and try hard?

And i am realy creative, when it comes to crazy and unusual scenarios; but here i come up empty; even if one has so to say uncontrollable urges, there is always masturbation, then at least one avoids sin for one spuse (which then can refuse without serious harm); and if both have uncontrollable urges then individual masturbation would usually lead to sin less often (as it is highly unlikely of uncontrollable urges being perfectly in sync).

 

[graciew]

graciew;14339557:

First, I was talking about what people post. Second, the paragraph you referenced talks about the effects of bad parenting lingering on into adulthood and negatively affecting the person in marriage.

I can’t find where concern for the children of the first marriage is specifically mentioned.

246 also.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;14339590:

246 also.

Also?

You mean this?
“For this reason also, Christian communities must not abandon divorced parents who have entered a new union, but should include and support them in their efforts to bring up their children.”

ETA: I read AL before Pope Francis “clarified” by approving the Argentinian bishops’ decision, and agree most heartily that mCatholics should do all they can to support anyone and everyone who is sincerely trying to grow in holiness. However, now I see all that has been written was to be a justification for allowing the use of the internal forum to permit D&R people to receive the sacraments, and I do not think that this change is justified by emotional appeals like. “But the children!”

 

[graciew]

graciew;14339629:

Also?

You mean this?
“For this reason also, Christian communities must not abandon divorced parents who have entered a new union, but should include and support them in their efforts to bring up their children.”

o

This:

1. The Church, while appreciating the situa-
   tions of conflict that are part of marriage, can-
   not fail to speak out on behalf of those who are
   most vulnerable: the children who often suffer in
   silence. Today, “despite our seemingly evolved
   sensibilities and all our refined psychological
   analyses, I ask myself if we are not becoming
   numb to the hurt in children’s souls… Do we feel
   the immense psychological burden borne by chil-
   dren in families where the members mistreat and
   hurt one another, to the point of breaking the
   bonds of marital fidelity?”269 Such harmful expe-
   riences do not help children to grow in the ma-
   turity needed to make definitive commitments.
   For this reason, Christian communities must not

268 Catechesis (20 May 2015): L‘Osservatore Romano, 21
May 2015, p. 8. 269 Catechesis (24 June 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 25

abandon divorced parents who have entered a
new union, but should include and support them
in their efforts to bring up their children. “How
can we encourage those parents to do everything
possible to raise their children in the Christian
life, to give them an example of committed and
practical faith, if we keep them at arm’s length
from the life of the community, as if they were
somehow excommunicated? We must keep from
acting in a way that adds even more to the bur-
dens that children in these situations already have
to bear!”270 Helping heal the wounds of parents
and supporting them spiritually is also beneficial
for children, who need the familiar face of the
Church to see them through this traumatic ex-
perience. Divorce is an evil and the increasing
number of divorces is very troubling. Hence,
our most important pastoral task with regard
to families is to strengthen their love, helping to
heal wounds and working to prevent the spread
of this drama of our times.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can you direct us to where St Thomas explains all this? I think all his writings are online so it should not be difficult.

You are asking me to find one or two sentences from Aquinas to explain his Philosophy of Man, the faculties of the soul, his detailed analysis of a moral act…perhaps so you can prove for yourself that what I say is in accord with Church teaching … or perhaps because you cannot find any of this explicitated in the CCC?

It took me five years of fulltime formal theology studies to gain this “under the hood” understanding of Aquinas (and hence 95% of Catholic Systematic Theology). So no I do not think I can do what you ask. I am simply providing those who have ears a quick distillation of my Masters Degree from the 1980s and my continuous reflection on it in the 30 years since. While I am no longer a novice I am certainly not an expert like Professor Don Ruggero.

If you think I am in error that is fine, treat me as a heretic and be at peace in disregarding what I say. If you believe that what I say accords with your own Catholic intuitions I am pleased as I may have provided you a traditional and orthodox theology for hanging your own sensus fidei on. I am sorry that I cannot prove this more easily to you with a few very explicit quotes from Aquinas. It is in fact borne of an appreciation of his system that is gleaned by understanding common threads throughout his large corpus of works as a whole.

There is always so much concern expressed for the second of the second relationship. What about the wife and children of the first?

Noone denies widespread divorce and remarriage is a grave disorder with temporal consequences for all involved. But there is new life after repenting of past mistakes and we who are righteous must surely be careful not to fall prey to the bitterness of the older brother in the face of our Father’s compassion that often goes beyond human understanding and “justice”.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;14339664:

This:

1. The Church, while appreciating the situa-
   tions of conflict that are part of marriage, can-
   not fail to speak out on behalf of those who are
   most vulnerable: the children who often suffer in
   silence. Today, “despite our seemingly evolved
   sensibilities and all our refined psychological
   analyses, I ask myself if we are not becoming
   numb to the hurt in children’s souls… Do we feel
   the immense psychological burden borne by chil-
   dren in families where the members mistreat and
   hurt one another, to the point of breaking the
   bonds of marital fidelity?”269 Such harmful expe-
   riences do not help children to grow in the ma-
   turity needed to make definitive commitments.
   For this reason, Christian communities must not

268 Catechesis (20 May 2015): L‘Osservatore Romano, 21
May 2015, p. 8. 269 Catechesis (24 June 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 25

abandon divorced parents who have entered a
new union, but should include and support them
in their efforts to bring up their children. “How
can we encourage those parents to do everything
possible to raise their children in the Christian
life, to give them an example of committed and
practical faith, if we keep them at arm’s length
from the life of the community, as if they were
somehow excommunicated? We must keep from
acting in a way that adds even more to the bur-
dens that children in these situations already have
to bear!”270 Helping heal the wounds of parents
and supporting them spiritually is also beneficial
for children, who need the familiar face of the
Church to see them through this traumatic ex-
perience. Divorce is an evil and the increasing
number of divorces is very troubling. Hence,
our most important pastoral task with regard
to families is to strengthen their love, helping to
heal wounds and working to prevent the spread
of this drama of our times.

So how does this justify allowing D&R with no annulment to receive the Eucharist?

 

[St_Francis]

You are asking me to find one or two sentences from Aquinas to explain his Philosophy of Man, the faculties of the soul, his detailed analysis of a moral act…perhaps so you can prove for yourself that what I say is in accord with Church teaching … or perhaps because you cannot find any of this explicitated in the CCC?

Wow, next time I’ll just ask you a whole lot of questions instead of asking where the information is… Just because I haven’t gone to school for 5 years as you have doesn’t mean I am completely illiterate.

It took me five years of fulltime formal theology studies to gain this “under the hood” understanding of Aquinas (and hence 95% of Catholic Systematic Theology). So no I do not think I can do what you ask. I am simply providing those who have ears a quick distillation of my Masters Degree from the 1980s and my continuous reflection on it in the 30 years since. While I am no longer a novice I am certainly not an expert like Professor Don Ruggero.

If you think I am in error that is fine, treat me as a heretic and be at peace in disregarding what I say. If you believe that what I say accords with your own Catholic intuitions I am pleased as I may have provided you a traditional and orthodox theology for hanging your own sensus fidei on. I am sorry that I cannot prove this more easily to you with a few very explicit quotes from Aquinas. It is in fact borne of an appreciation of his system that is gleaned by understanding common threads throughout his large corpus of works as a whole.

You have put so many words in my mouth in this one post… Words fail me.

No one denies widespread divorce and remarriage is a grave disorder with temporal consequences for all involved. But there is new life after repenting of past mistakes and we who are righteous must surely be careful not to fall prey to the bitterness of the older brother in the face of our Father’s compassion that often goes beyond human understanding and “justice”.

Just because someone has questions doesn’t mean they are bitter. I already admitted that I see how this can work. What I do not understand is the justification, the implications about the past discipline, the criteria for making these decisions… That is not bitterness, that is bewilderment.

 

[carn]

And i am realy creative, when it comes to crazy and unusual scenarios; but here i come up empty; even if one has so to say uncontrollable urges, there is always masturbation, then at least one avoids sin for one spuse (which then can refuse without serious harm); and if both have uncontrollable urges then individual masturbation would usually lead to sin less often (as it is highly unlikely of uncontrollable urges being perfectly in sync).

Ok, got one:

If a couple is somehow disposed such that they go into full depression and despair without sex; but even then the intent to right things needs to be there, namely in trying to resolve the psychological issue (if someone goes into despair for not having sex, it is a psychological problem); so they should at least try to increase the time they manage without sex with the goal of freeing themselves from this mental chains; and that implicitely still means they must have the intent to sin no more, just that the road towards that goal is longer and more complicated.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, that is pretty much the point pnewton and myself were communicating to TW re his interjection of Jn 8:11 into the discussion.

Well I think I know what you are saying here but you’ve perhaps clouded the issue with a few other minor concerns. First up “individual confession” as we know it is a relatively new practise. Only in the late 007-800s did it start becoming popular due to itinerant monks from Ireland I believe. Before that, simply being an official penitent with a designated group of “grave sinners” presented at Church on Sundays during Lent and forgiven on Easter Sunday appears to have been the norm for reconciling with the Parish again. I am relying on memory though.
That ongoing penitential practice suggests a firm intention of amendment to me - even if nothing was actually said…just like the woman with Jesus in John 8. And again, if they failed after Easter they would no doubt have to go through all the sack cloth and ashes again the following year. Though some Early Church Communities tried to get really rigorist and boot them out of the Parish completely if they failed even once re the designated grave public sins.

People would I think validly disagree with this single reason analysis. There are a variety of distinct reasons why irregulars might be prohibited from receiving…some of them having nothing to do with the sort of adultery Jesus was concerned about. The very fact of being civilly married again is enough to bar from communion even if living as brother/sister.
Also, some of those sexually active may well be fornicating (or less) rather than adulterating.

for many yes, but not all if it is not actually adultery that is in question.
The other issue here would be whether it is possible to have such an intention while ate the same time objectively knowing that one is not actually free to implement it at the moment.
I believe Pope Francis is saying this is in fact possible - and even traditional theology/philosophy would not disagree with this being possible.

I think we need to decide whether the distinction between “sin” as “objectively grave and disordered outward actions” and sin as “personal and direct intention for such outward actions” are what we are really talking about here.

This, to me, demonstrates a less than robust appreciation of traditional Church teaching re Philosophy of Man, moral intention,moral freedom, outward actions, interior actions and the meaning of “a firm purpose of amendment”.
For example why would you think that an alcoholic cannot have a true intent to stop drinking before during and after his outward lapses?
Sometimes we are in a state of sin such that our secondary instrumental faculties (imagination, memory, bodily drives) at times will not obey the commands of our more primary faculties of will and intellect even though the primary faculty (the will) may be opposed to the operations of the secondary faculties that execute bodily commands. Such is the Philosophy of Man of Aquinas. We can enter states of sin and habit or circumstance where we do not at times actually have the freedom to execute our deepest intents.
Yes, we often get into those states culpably…but even after repentence these strong secondary unfreedom’s can remain.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that some faculties will not obey the will. Does this indicate that the will is weak, or that external influences override the will or something else? Because it seems to me that what happens is that sometimes the will is overwhelmed by forces outside of it (but either inside or outside the person) and changes.

I suggest such person’s in this state can likely rbe ecognised by their Christian example in every other aspect of their lives other than where their secondary unfreedoms clearly manifest.

This angle is clearly where Pope Francis is coming from in AL where he implies that some irregulars are in a situation where the best moral choice for the sake of the children is actually not to split up…and for some it may not be good for a spouse to refuse relations with their partner for the same reason.
While many here will not agree with this position, it is a position that has theological justification and is worthy of reasonable debate until settled.

Also, I do not understand why a D&R person cannot pray and receive Spiritual Communion until such time as their situation is regularized.

 

[goout]

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that some faculties will not obey the will. Does this indicate that the will is weak, or that external influences override the will or something else? Because it seems to me that what happens is that sometimes the will is overwhelmed by forces outside of it (but either inside or outside the person) and changes.

Good question.
Pastoral practice should not accommodate itself to our lower nature. And this is frequently what we see suggested.
Pastoral practice should call us to our best selves. And that is difficult work. The danger here is that some will use compassion as an excuse to accommodate.
The meaning of compassion is “to suffer with”.

 

[carn]

Also, I do not understand why a D&R person cannot pray and receive Spiritual Communion until such time as their situation is regularized.

For that i can offer this somewhat hypothetical scenario, in which A ends up in situation without anything she personally can do, although she is in a valid marriage and although she is without any glimmer of doubt that her prior “marriage” was no valid one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14337504&postcount=948

“unfair” would not be a completly unreasonable description; but of course just because some rules end up to be “unfair” does not necessary mean the rules must be scraped, as practically any man enforced rule will end up unfair for someone somewhere; and furthermore, if one is following Christ right behind, there is no guarantee there isn’t any unfairness along the way, cause along His path he was also not always treated fairly.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, that is pretty much the point pnewton and myself were communicating to TW re his interjection of Jn 8:11 into the discussion.

Seriously? This was viewed as an interjection into THIS discussion?

I think we need to decide whether the distinction between “sin” as “objectively grave and disordered outward actions” and sin as “personal and direct intention for such outward actions” are what we are really talking about here.

This, to me, demonstrates a less than robust appreciation of traditional Church teaching re Philosophy of Man, moral intention,moral freedom, outward actions, interior actions and the meaning of “a firm purpose of amendment”.
For example why would you think that an alcoholic cannot have a true intent to stop drinking before during and after his outward lapses?
Sometimes we are in a state of sin such that our secondary instrumental faculties (imagination, memory, bodily drives) at times will not obey the commands of our more primary faculties of will and intellect even though the primary faculty (the will) may be opposed to the operations of the secondary faculties that execute bodily commands. Such is the Philosophy of Man of Aquinas. We can enter states of sin and habit or circumstance where we do not at times actually have the freedom to execute our deepest intents.
Yes, we often get into those states culpably…but even after repentence these strong secondary unfreedom’s can remain.

Following Augustine, man’s free will is corrupted by Original Sin. Consequently, given a choice, man must, absent God’s grace, choose evil. It is his nature. This is particularly so with respect to sins of the flesh (Augustine’s term is ‘concupiscence’).