Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Ender]

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.

Are you setting up a situation where it would be justifiable to do evil because good will come of it?

Ender

 

[carn]

Are you setting up a situation where it would be justifiable to do evil because good will come of it?

Ender

I am trying to set up a situation wherein they might be rather certain they end up in a situation in which they commit evil but also likely going to have rather certainly reduced culpability.

That as far as i understood would rather match what Blue Horizon talks about, knowing beforehand that you’re intent is somewhat “handicapped” in that you expect failure, but this is supposedly no impediment to valid confession (and thereby opens up path to eucharist) as you will not be cupable for that failure and already know that beforehand.

I am not claiming this is ok with any prior churcht teaching nor claiming the opposite; just trying to set up a scenario fitting to Blue Horizon’s boundary conditions.

 

[goout]

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

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’).

There is no such thing as temptation “absent God’s grace”. God provides the grace in every case to follow his will.
Conforming one’s self to God’s will can be enormously difficult due to concupiscence, but the assumption of the Church is (even in AL) that man can and should live a moral life, and is called unambiguously to strive towards and live a moral life.
Hedging one’s bets because moral decisions are difficult is no pastoral strategy, and this is not what the Pope is calling for.

It is never acceptable to pick and choose between evil alternatives. We are called to the good in every situation, and God provides the grace in every situation.

 

[o_mlly]

…
I suppose then the question becomes one of how much public objective irregularity can the Church tolerate before Communion should be denied…

Many Catholics would like to see our bishops impose uniformly the principles applying to divorced and remarried Catholics to all who are objectively in mortal sin. How many nominally Catholic politicians who support abortion and/or gay marriage continue to present themselves for Communion and receive?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Francis it is a neutral fact of life that CAF is home to contributors of extreme ranges of theological and pastoral experience and education. I am simply explaining why I cannot answer your questions in the way you assume is possible. It would require a course in theology to do so. Time and again I find that person’s here who would willingly accept they do not have the formal education needed to enter into anything more than cursory discussion on a quantum physics forum somehow believe they can do so re complicated issues of moral theology and philosophy…some even to questioning a Pope.
This surely has nothing to do with you being illiterate, but does have a lot do to with not being formally educated in philosophy and theology. If this reality is insulting to you then it would probably have been better if I had not tried to politely respond to you at all. Though you may have been put out if I ignored you anways?

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

Please re-read, you will note question marks. This suggests I was in fact musing out loud what you wanted from me in the face of ambiguity so I could respond more appositely.

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.

Francis I do not think further converse will be helpful as your sensitivities seem to cause you to take my generalised comments personally. First of all if i was speaking personally I speak from my own temptations, second, if I was targeting anybody in particular it was C. Burke.
But if you find the cap fits your good self that is a call only you can make. For myself when I feel that way automatically it’s good fodder for prayer and reflection and usually partly true. Nothing to be insulted by but welcomed as an opportunity from God for new self insight.
But as I say, that is a call only you can make…my observations were in fact generalised.
Be at peace.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Your scenario illustrates well what I explained earlier as my understanding of how this could work.

Up until now, we have had a certain way of looking at this. The person who appeared to be in sin was protected from the potential self-condemnation of partaking unworthily; The Eucharist was protected from the evil of being consumed by someone spiritually dead.

The Church was clear that the internal forum solution was unacceptable for two reasons: 1. that the person involved was unable to be sufficiently objective, and 2. the priest, too, may be biased about those with whom he works so closely, and 3. in most cases, no one involved will have specialized training in discernment of these types of situations.

Familiaris Consortio addressed this issue (IIRC), and definitely said that the D&R are to be welcomed and helped as much as possible to integrate into the parish/Church family.

Praying, making acts of contrition and spiritual communion were considered appropriate in that the abstention from the “outward sign” of a sacrament reflected the lack of unity wrt the “outward sign” of the sacrament of marriage. If a person were “unfairly” caught in this scenario, the obedience develops great virtue.

 

[goout]

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.

Honestly, the request for reference here should not cause too much trouble.

I do not believe St Thomas espouses the conclusion you set forth here. It seems to me he addresses your objection in a straightforward way.
newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm#article1

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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).

Carn I admire your creative imaginative solutions for resolving this difficulty for two Catholics but it does seem to have a few speed bumps when you start contemplating masturbation and chastity belt scenarios as a planned solution. .
To put it a little bluntly I think it is a healthier concession to human frailty to fall into normal sex and seek ongoing forgiveness than the desperate and unhealthy obsession with not having normal intercourse (and a personal relationship) and engaging in the damaging means you suggest!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am trying to set up a situation wherein they might be rather certain they end up in a situation in which they commit evil but also likely going to have rather certainly reduced culpability.

That as far as i understood would rather match what Blue Horizon talks about, knowing beforehand that you’re intent is somewhat “handicapped” in that you expect failure, but this is supposedly no impediment to valid confession (and thereby opens up path to eucharist) as you will not be cupable for that failure and already know that beforehand.

Carn I think your last bit may need rethinking.
Non culpability, even in the face of regular sins of grave matter, by itself cannot alone justify access to Communion.

As Canon 915 makes clear the main issue is the publicity and obstinacy of disposition involved.
While regular confession suggest obstinacy may not be involved, despite ongoing failure, there is still the question of the public appreciation of what is going on.

If a Congregation is not mature enough to see that not all such failing couples are obstinately opposing Church Teaching (especially if they are accompanied formally by the PP) then perhaps the current prohibitions should stand. That would be sad though.

 

[pnewton]

The Church was clear that the internal forum solution was unacceptable for two reasons: 1. that the person involved was unable to be sufficiently objective, and 2. the priest, too, may be biased about those with whom he works so closely, and 3. in most cases, no one involved will have specialized training in discernment of these types of situations.

What do you mean “unacceptable”? Pope Francis has said"

Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum,
contributes to the formation of a correct judgment
on what hinders the possibility of a fuller
participation in the life of the Church and on
what steps can foster it and make it grow.

Doesn’t sound unacceptable to me. Reading through the full document, it appears he has more faith in the priesthood. I mean, tribunals are composed of people as well.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Honestly, the request for reference here should not cause too much trouble.

I do not believe St Thomas espouses the conclusion you set forth here. It seems to me he addresses your objection in a straightforward way.
newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm#article1

If you believe this deep systemic question can be conclusively answered by a single less than ideal snapshot quote from Aquinas rather than a more representative video clip go for it.

I am simply offering the summary benefit of my own expensive education and experience re Aquinas for free and as a pointer where the serious may like to start digging and likely find gold.

 

[goout]

…To put it a little bluntly I think it is a healthier concession to human frailty to fall into normal sex and seek ongoing forgiveness than the desperate and unhealthy obsession with not having normal intercourse (and a personal relationship) and engaging in the damaging means you suggest!

This is seriously out of step with Catholic morality.
Please:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

1. Conceding to immorality is never a viable option.
2. Conceiving (no pun intended) and implementing a life of immorality with the intention of seeking ongoing “forgiveness” of habitual sin is not reconciliation. It’s presumption. The “concession”, as you say, makes it so. This is bad faith.
   If I could paraphrase Romano Guardini, “one would be better off to simply say “I choose sin”” than to perpetuate a ruse of good faith.
3. Although it might be difficult to see, relations outside the bounds of marriage is not “normal intercourse”.

(Disclaimer: I would never speak this way to an RCIA candidate or someone on the street, but you say you are a theologian, so let’s just talk bluntly).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Seriously? This was viewed as an interjection …

TW if you did not quote Jn 8:11 to bolster your view that repeated lapses in brother/sister chastity indicates no firm resolve and so shouldn’t be forgiven then, seriously, I don’t think anyone here knows what your point was with not knowing what Jesus knows either .

 

[goout]

If you believe this deep systemic question can be conclusively answered by a single less than ideal snapshot quote from Aquinas rather than a more representative video clip go for it.

I am simply offering the summary benefit of my own expensive education and experience re Aquinas for free and as a pointer where the serious may like to start digging and likely find gold.

Maybe you can help us with some beginning reference points for dummies.
I found one.
What can you contribute? Or do I need to move beyond the free portion of the course.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is seriously out of step with Catholic morality.
Please:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

1. Conceding to immorality is never a viable option.
2. Conceiving (no pun intended) and implementing a life of immorality with the intention of seeking ongoing “forgiveness” of habitual sin is not reconciliation. It’s presumption. The “concession”, as you say, makes it so. This is bad faith.
   If I could paraphrase Romano Guardini, “one would be better off to simply say “I choose sin”” than to perpetuate a ruse of good faith.
3. Although it might be difficult to see, relations outside the bounds of marriage is not “normal intercourse”.

(Disclaimer: I would never speak this way to an RCIA candidate or someone on the street, but you say you are a theologian, so let’s just talk bluntly).

A somewhat circular argument.
Whether repeated failures actually indicates no firm resolve is the very point in discussion.
Resorting to even more twisted forms of relationship failure such as masturbation and chastity belts, whether real or psychologically equivalent, simply to outwardly prove firm intention is itself extremely unhealthy for the couple and unlikely a trajectory which will eventually lead to the escape velocity being sought.

 

[Stat_Crux]

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.

So you are suggesting that Pope Francis supports the “Proportionalist” theory of moral choice, by suggesting that adultery is the best moral choice “for the sake of the children” as condemned in Pope St John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor? Quoting from paragraph 75:

1. But as part of the effort to work out such a rational morality (for this reason it is sometimes called an “autonomous morality” ) there exist false solutions, linked in particular to an inadequate understanding of the object of moral action. Some authors do not take into sufficient consideration the fact that the will is involved in the concrete choices which it makes: these choices are a condition of its moral goodness and its being ordered to the ultimate end of the person. Others are inspired by a notion of freedom which prescinds from the actual conditions of its exercise, from its objective reference to the truth about the good, and from its determination through choices of concrete kinds of behaviour. According to these theories, free will would neither be morally subjected to specific obligations nor shaped by its choices, while nonetheless still remaining responsible for its own acts and for their consequences. This “teleologism”, as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called — according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought — “consequentialism” or “proportionalism”. The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the “greater good” or “lesser evil” actually possible in a particular situation.

The teleological ethical theories (proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behaviour which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values.

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.

One afternoon reading Veritatis Splendor would have avoided that error.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Maybe you can help us with some beginning reference points for dummies.
I found one.
What can you contribute? Or do I need to move beyond the free portion of the course.

Mt 7:6 suggests my free discussion has come to a close Gout, at least with you.
God’s peace.

 

[goout]

A somewhat circular argument.
Whether repeated failures actually indicates no firm resolve is the very point in discussion.
Resorting to even more twisted forms of relationship failure such as masturbation and chastity belts, whether real or psychologically equivalent, simply to outwardly prove firm intention is itself extremely unhealthy for the couple and unlikely a trajectory which will eventually lead to the escape velocity being sought.

People fail, that’s a fact. That’s not the point. I’m precisely point you to the fact that choosing one evil to divert one’s attention from another is not an option.
You have theology expertise. Have you ever read this?
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

Your attempt at pastoral and moral guidance is based on conceding the difficult moral ground that life presents us, and ameliorating that difficulty with the ruse of cheap and presumptuous mercy.
This is what you said:

To put it a little bluntly I think it is a healthier concession to human frailty to fall into normal sex and seek ongoing forgiveness than the desperate and unhealthy obsession with not having normal intercourse (and a personal relationship) and engaging in the damaging means you suggest!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you are suggesting that Pope Francis supports the “Proportionalist” theory of moral choice, by suggesting that adultery is the best moral choice “for the sake of the children” as condemned in Pope St John Paul II

No.
But Pope Francis is putting forth sexual cohabitation for some irregulars as a possible Catholic and Magisterial “theory” worthy of debate and the matter is not closed despite JPII allowing cohabitation for the sake of the children only under condition of absolute chastity.
Pope Francis, with more insightful pastoral experience, appears to see this as not always possible for all such worthy irregulars.

That much is clear for those who have eyes to see.

 

[Stat_Crux]

No.
But Pope Francis is putting forth sexual cohabitation for some irregulars as a possible Catholic and Magisterial “theory” worthy of debate and the matter is not closed despite JPII.

That much is clear for those who have eyes to see.

A “possible Catholic and Magesterial “theory””? I wasn’t aware that the Holy Spirit was so unsure of itself.

Again from Veritatis Splendor paragraph 75:

The teleological ethical theories (proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behaviour which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values.

Do you therefore believe that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition on particular kinds of behavior? For example, do you consider that under the right circumstances you (or are you still daring to try to suggest Pope Francis does?) support the idea that you could find a “moral justification” for choosing an abortion, commit rape, practice incest or murder? Or do you pick and choose your morality based on the situation, say, as in moral relativism?

Or perhaps you are wrong and do not have the humility to admit it?