Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[St_Francis]

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!

Hmmm, you think it is better to drag another person into sin than to commit sin alone? I don’t think so…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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:

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?

I can only tell you what I believe Pope Francis is clearly saying.

If you believe Pope Francis is a heretic for contradicting Pope JPII by all means join the Four Cardinals and address your above angst and anger to him with a petition:shrug:.

You are getting upset over this discussion so excuse me for not engaging further with you for the moment. Peace to you also.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

When Augustine says man must, absent God’s grace, chose evil, he is certainly not saying this choice is not sinful or that it is excused–quite the contrary. It is the result of his corrupted will as a result of Original Sin. Original Sin is of course absolved by the sacrament of Baptism, but, his free will corrupted by Original Sin, man must seek God’s grace to resist, in particular, the temptations of the flesh. This is Augustine’s position in the ‘Confessions’, as I recall it.

It’s relevance here would concern a Catholic in an irregular marriage. While such person might well benefit from spiritual assistance, I do not agree that he should be permitted by the Church to receive Holy Communion prior to his resolving his situation in conformance with Church doctrine (i.e., while he remains in the state of mortal sin).

 

[pnewton]

1. 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.

From my point of view, I see this as the condition of all humanity. We have to live a life in which we know we will make immoral choices with the intention of seeking ongoing forgiveness.

 

[pnewton]

When we read what Pope Francis’ predecessors wrote on the subject, we should remember neither pronounced the final word on the topic. There was an understanding, and a direct statement that the Church needed further reflection on the problem. Pope Francis alone called for a synod to meet twice and pursue this reflection that the other popes spoke of. Amoris Laetitia, in addition to being a product of the family synod, should be read in the broader context of this on-going reflection on the subject of the family and marriage, not as some aberration that came out of left field, and certainly not as competition of any other pope.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Sorry that my using the word “was” (past tense) did not make clear that I was speaking about what the Church taught before AL or either of the two family synods.

 

[goout]

From my point of view, I see this as the condition of all humanity. We have to live a life in which we know we will make immoral choices with the intention of seeking ongoing forgiveness.

It is a fact that human beings are sinners in need of ongoing forgiveness, save only one.

Since it is advent…
the call of John the Baptist, and Jesus himself, is to “repent, the kingdom of God is at hand”.
In repentance, the intent is to literally “turn around one’s thinking” and conform one’s life to Christ. And so we participate in the reconciliation Christ offers us. In repentance, we respond in good faith to Christ’s offer of reconciliation.

In contrast, the poster spoke of conceding to a supposedly lesser evil and ameliorating the difficulty with the presumption of ongoing forgiveness. This is not a full response to love, it is a concession to evil. Love does not concede to evil, it triumphs over it. With good faith response to the grace of Christ, we are able to triumph over evil.

These are radically different approaches to the Christian life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hmmm, you think it is better to drag another person into sin than to commit sin alone? I don’t think so…

Francis an irregular couple are already sinning in the sense that they are perpetuating an already objectively disordered situation.
The Church teaches they should separate unless they are not morally free to do so for the good of the children. So we are already conceding a proportionalist argument on the basis of indirect intention and loss of freedom to do better.

It is my understanding of Pope Francis’s position that it may be possible under these circumstances to extend this analysis even to including sexual activity for some couples who would need heroic virtue to cohabiting in perfect chastity. Noone is saying it isn’t objectively disordered to do so, just as remaining together is also gravely disordered perfect chastity or not.

It would possibly be permissable under the same principle of indirect intention used to justify killing in self defence. Killing is against the 5th, yet some types of regular killers can receive Communion. So proportionality arguments are acceptable even re sins of grave matter when indirect intention is proven to be in play. There is no theological reason I can see why the same principles cannot be applied to the 6th.

Regardless of what you and I believe Pope Francis has put this issue in the ring for debate.
Hopfully that is what we are doing.

It is unfortunate that some contributors here are of such a set position that they cannot accept even the current viability of an opposing position and wish to silence the matter simply by allegedly authoritative fiat from past Popes.

To do so would be to oppose the fairly clear statements of Pope Francis that he regards the matter as now open for debate.

Which of course is what the 4Cs are doing to the detriment of Church unity.
The discussion I predict will inevitably proceed without them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When Augustine says man must, absent God’s grace, chose evil, he is certainly not saying this choice is not sinful or that it is excused–quite the contrary. It is the result of his corrupted will as a result of Original Sin. Original Sin is of course absolved by the sacrament of Baptism, but, his free will corrupted by Original Sin, man must seek God’s grace to resist, in particular, the temptations of the flesh. This is Augustine’s position in the ‘Confessions’, as I recall it.

It’s relevance here would concern a Catholic in an irregular marriage. While such person might well benefit from spiritual assistance, I do not agree that he should be permitted by the Church to receive Holy Communion prior to his resolving his situation in conformance with Church doctrine (i.e., while he remains in the state of mortal sin).

Thomas such a person cannot properly be said to be in a state of mortal sin.

I believe the preferred terminology is “grave sin” or sins of grave matter as subtle changes to the 1984 Code and the 1992 CCC seem to indicate.

 

[carn]

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.

You misunderstand my approach; currently i do not consider the slightest the issue of how the Church can/might/should handle/regulate/approach the issue of D&R approaching for communion; i consider how, if, when the D&R can in clear conscience approach communion.

The basics as far as i understand:

Go to Mass each Sunday and other Days with obligation.

In case such a day is imminent and one considers approaching eucharist CHECK THE FOLLOWING REALY CAREFULLY:

1. Do i have any serious sins in my baggage, which might be mortal? (actually this question should be asked regularly, but especially in case of communion)

NO-> Cool (though maybe ponder your venial sins; maybe still go to confession)

YES → valid Confession first; in case confession cannot be arranged before Mass, tough luck, don’t go forward

1. Go to confession → did i truly validly confess?
   2a. Did i name all sins (at most unintentionally forgetting to name some or leave out the rather “minor” ones)?
   2b. Did i repent and did i have intention not to sin again?

YES to both-> no need to keep back (though one could)

NO to one → don’t go forward; try to resolve the issue that was answered NO and go annew to confession

Ok. Any error?

The critical aspect is 1. and 2b.

I can see how a D&R catholic can get past that, IF he/she is practically absolute certain for good reason, that prior “marriage” was not valid and current is valid and the only issue is that for some reasons annulment has yet not or will even never happen.

Then honestly on can answer 1. with NO, i know i did not commit adultery/fornication with my valid spouse and my previous fornication in my first non-valid “marriage” is confessed and will not be repeated; only hinderance now left is Canon 915, which the Church might do away with or make exceptions or whatever.

I can see how a D&R catholic can get past that, IF he/she considers it likely that the prior “marriage” was actually valid, but is ready (and invalid “spouse” is somehow ok with that) to live in continence.

But i cannot see how a D&R catholic can get past that, IF he/she considers it likely that the prior “marriage” was actually valid but does not intent to live in continence; then 1. has to be answered with YES; then 2a and 2b need also YES as answer; with 2a that is more or less easy; but 2b? How, if one intends to continue to live together without continence? I cannot have intent to not sin again, if having sex with my invalid “spouse” is sin and i intend to have such sex one day again.

And to understand how to get past that, i try to come up with scenarios.

So the issue of Canon 915 or other Church rules is realy secondary to the problem i see. That might be resolvable.

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.

I thought we are in gray area? In greyland there are no options totally unthinkable as each option has black and white and therefore considering each option is the way to go, to end up with the “best” one.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas such a person cannot properly be said to be in a state of mortal sin.

I believe the preferred terminology is “grave sin” or sins of grave matter as subtle changes to the 1984 Code and the 1992 CCC seem to indicate.

Let us then substitute the following: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion” (Canon 915, 1983 code of canon law).

There is no 1984 code of canon law.

"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

“Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the young man: Do not kill. Not commit adultery…” (1992 CCC, 1857-58.)

Though I do not have a master’s degree in divinity, it is hardly a requirement for literacy. What I try to do is not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

 

[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?

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, (you) 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.

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”.

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?

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. Francis I do not think further converse will be helpful as your sensitivities seem to cause you to take my generalised comments personally.

One question in your post, and many indications that you were speaking to “you”…

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.

That was so unclear that I searched to see if anyone named Burke had commented on this thread

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.

I have noticed that you often have to explain how you meant your tone to be something other than what it was taken to be, not only to me. I suggest that you show someone you have known for a long time in real life some of your conversations here, and ask that person how you might be able to change your style to one which more clearly exhibits your desired tone.

 

[carn]

Hmmm, you think it is better to drag another person into sin than to commit sin alone? I don’t think so…

Its not only that my “gray area processing” part of brain considers only one person sinning to be preferable to two persons sinning, if the sins are not fundamentally different; its also that the buck stops with me for things caused by myself; if due to some flaw, i cannot avoid sin, then i sin preferably alone (unless of course the “communal” would be somehow “lesser”), so the punishment is concentrated on the one being the cause of the problem, so concentrated on me.

 

[KSU]

If you believe Pope Francis is a heretic for contradicting Pope JPII by all means join the Four Cardinals and address your above angst and anger to him with a petition:shrug:.

.

Blue, don’t you think you should apologize to Stat_Crux? That ploy has been used on this and similar threads before; it’s flirting with calumny.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One question in your post, and many indications that you were speaking to “you”…

That was so unclear that I searched to see if anyone named Burke had commented on this thread

I have noticed that you often have to explain how you meant your tone to be something other than what it was taken to be, not only to me. I suggest that you show someone you have known for a long time in real life some of your conversations here, and ask that person how you might be able to change your style to one which more clearly exhibits your desired tone.

Francis it is not worth getting bitter and upset over teacup arguments in a Net forum, Catholic or otherwise. Yes, this time I am suggesting you are upset. And for that reason I won’t be exacerbating your sensitivities by further discussion with you. Wishing you God’s peace.

 

[St_Francis]

Francis an irregular couple are already sinning in the sense that they are perpetuating an already objectively disordered situation.

My impression was that Carn was describing a situation in which both were Catholic ans trying to avoid the sin of an adulterous act.

The Church teaches they should separate unless they are not morally free to do so for the good of the children.

I hesitate to ask you for a source prior to AL lest you take it to mean I want to call you a heretic…

So we are already conceding a proportionalist argument on the basis of indirect intention and loss of freedom to do better.

It is my understanding of Pope Francis’s position that it may be possible under these circumstances to extend this analysis even to including sexual activity for some couples who would need heroic virtue to cohabiting in perfect chastity. No one is saying it isn’t objectively disordered to do so, just as remaining together is also gravely disordered perfect chastity or not.

It would possibly be permissable under the same principle of indirect intention used to justify killing in self defence. Killing is against the 5th, yet some types of regular killers can receive Communion. So proportionality arguments are acceptable even re sins of grave matter when indirect intention is proven to be in play. There is no theological reason I can see why the same principles cannot be applied to the 6th.

I just don’t follow this whole line of justification for the changes proposed in AL.

Regardless of what you and I believe Pope Francis has put this issue in the ring for debate.
Hopefully that is what we are doing.

Well, I’m not debating, per se; I am trying to come to a better understanding of the apparent accepted change.

It is unfortunate that some contributors here are of such a set position that they cannot accept even the current viability of an opposing position and wish to silence the matter simply by allegedly authoritative fiat from past Popes.

Maybe they are just asking for an explanation of why what the past Popes said is being abrogated? Because, frankly, I don’t have an explanation for that myself.

To do so would be to oppose the fairly clear statements of Pope Francis that he regards the matter as now open for debate.

How is it open for debate when he is “answering what AL means by his approval” of bishops who make the objects of contention the rule in their diocese?

Which of course is what the 4Cs are doing to the detriment of Church unity.

Asking for an explanation is inimical to debate? How so?

And telling them to be silent is… helpful to debate? I really don’t get that.

The discussion I predict will inevitably proceed without them.

Yes, apparently with only those who agree with the Pope. Some debate!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let us then substitute the following: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion” (Canon 915, 1983 code of canon law).

"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

“Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the young man: Do not kill. Not commit adultery…” (1992 CCC, 1857-58.)
.

I am glad you have looked at the refs I supplied and agree.

 

[Thomas_White]

I am glad you have looked at the refs I supplied and agree.

Blue, what is it? I first looked at those provision of the 1983 code of canon law and the 1992 CCC many years ago.

Why not get back on topic and discuss the reservations concerning AL that I expressed in the last paragraphs of my comment #973.

 

[goout]

Francis it is not worth getting bitter and upset over teacup arguments in a Net forum, Catholic or otherwise. Yes, this time I am suggesting you are upset. And for that reason I won’t be exacerbating your sensitivities by further discussion with you. Wishing you God’s peace.

Can you simply engage in dialogue, and answer questions and challenges like everyone else? It is an apologetics forum.
You have dismissed like 4 posters now…

I’d still be interested in seeing reference to the Thomas Aquinas/free will question.

 

[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.

It seems what you are trying to create is a situation where a person is justified in doing evil in those situations where he is convinced he is not culpable for his act (or where he believes his culpability is reduced to that of at worst a venial sin.)

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 culpable for that failure and already know that beforehand.

I wonder if you have considered how this principle would extend to other sins. We sin because we succumb to temptation. Asserting that our intent is “handicapped” is nothing more than acknowledging that we are often tempted and often fail to resist. How does that eliminate our culpability? Moreover, if in fact we were not culpable for those failures, and “already know that beforehand” what would be the need for confession? How can we be absolved of sins we are not responsible for committing in the first place?

The idea that we can freely commit grave sins because we are unable to overcome our desire to do so seems obviously contrary to what the church has taught on the matter.

Ender