Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

What is what? Can you be specific, I don’t really want to get into another I don’t know what Jesus knows even though I heard what he said jelly pinning exercise .

Re FI (Pope Francis) and the footnote re the sacraments what is not clear to you re current examples? You seem to be saying Reconciliation is not possible for irregulars who do not explicitly commit to perfect chastity. If I have understood you correctly then I believe you are at odds with FI’s intent to have this teased out more.

BTW the need for confession in the venial sins you speak of is primarily Canonical.
916 I think it is that States we must go to confession if we are conscious…not of mortal sins…but rather " grave sins."

I understand that to mean any transgression, mortal, venial or sleepwalking that involves designated serious objective disorder/matter.

I have never read anything from the Magisterium or the Rotary to deny the validity of my understanding since 1983 when the Canon was changed from mortal sin (1917) to grave sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.)
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

Ender we have crossed lances long enough for me to suddenly realise your understanding of culpability/imputability may be tangling your shoelaces.

You seem to think that by saying someone is not morally culpable for engaging in grave matter that they are not responsible for temporal consequences?

This of course is not true. The very fact that we admit they still did engage in a grave disorder means they are responsible in some fashion for the evil consequences.
By non imputable we mean there is no eternal punishment due to them for these non moral evils they have caused.

You seem to understand non imputable as not responsible perhaps?
In fact these are not synonyms in Catholic theology as I understand things.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

ABOVE CONTINUED…

BTW I believe the need for confession re the venial sins of grave matter that you speak of is primarily Canonical. 916 I think it is that States we must go to confession if we are conscious…not of mortal sins…but rather of “grave sins.”

I understand that to mean any transgression, mortal, venial or sleepwalking that involves designated serious objective disorder/matter.

I have never read anything from the Magisterium or the Rotary to deny the validity of my understanding since 1983 when the Canon was changed from mortal sin (1917) to grave sin.

If it were not for this canon we would be free to approach for Communion if it was reasonably established that our sins of grave matter were imputed to venial for the usual reasons.

On the other hand the minister has a corresponding duty, Canon 915 I think, to make sure those of us who are publicly known to be caught up in specially designated sins of grave matter, are approaching with the right disposition and not overly scandalising the congregation by being seen to do so.

Of course if it were not for these Canons it is still good to confess even venial sins…it’s like clearing the scrub from around the farm in early Spring before the fires of summer.

Especially for sins of grave matter which should never be treated lightly as they still cause damage and as we mature in strength of will and understanding of our lives we could one day be sinning mortally.

 

[Thomas_White]

What is what? Can you be specific, I don’t really want to get into another I don’t know what Jesus knows even though I heard what he said jelly pinning exercise .

Is this perchance a Zen koan?

Re FI (Pope Francis) and the footnote re the sacraments what is not clear to you re current examples? You seem to be saying Reconciliation is not possible for irregulars who doi not explicitly commit to perfect chastity. If I have understood you correctly then I believe you are at odds with FI’s intent to have this teased out more.

In my comment #973, I note that a quote I cite, re: 351, is ambiguous. Do you think Holy Communion would be included in the phrase “help from the sacraments”? My intuition is that this is the intent. Epistemological arguments not withstanding, that’s it.

What do you think?

 

[pnewton]

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.

Understood, though I think “taught” misses the point that it was a practice.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I do not see the radical difference. What you call a concession may well be nothing but a honest realization of our fallen condition. Otherwise, I understand the importance of repentance in good faith and with whole heart. I am confident that parish priests understand this principle as well. I do not see where anything the Holy Father is proposing is going to evolve without incorporating repentance. He describes are rather arduous and soul-searching process, which might well end in not receiving communion, separation or living in continence. I believe this point is being missed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is this perchance a Zen koan?

I have been wondering the same about you not knowing what Jesus knows when he says things he didn’t say .

In my comment #973, I note that a quote I cite, re: 351, is ambiguous. Do you think Holy Communion would be included in the phrase “help from the sacraments”? My intuition is that this is the intent. Epistemological arguments not withstanding, that’s it.

What do you think?

I am done for the day…let me re consult F1’s response to the Arg Bishops Guidelines first to recheck my position on this one.
Ambiguity is 95% intentional in Magisterial and Canonical docs from my experience.
It’s the Italian/Roman way. That doesn’t mean it is ambiguous, it’s just an acceptable way of keeping everybody “happy” as the carpet is slowly pulled out in an unfamiliar direction.

 

[pnewton]

I think it good to avoid both the accusation of heresy in general, as well as moral relativism. Nothing in this discussion has reflected either and all that talk is too inflammatory, not to mention a straw man.

 

[Stat_Crux]

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.

On contrary, I am not upset at all. Always happy to help. Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another (Proverbs, 27:17). You have however avoided answering my question on** your** position regarding your apparent support for proportionalism as now being justified by AL, and instead made an unjustified accusation against me.

Pope Francis is not a heretic. I occasionally find his style unusual or difficult to understand, but he is my Pope as much as he is the Pope. I would prefer that he taught clarity on this matter given its importance and that confusion does not seen to serve any purpose in building up Christ’s Church. But that is his prerogative to decide on.
Blue Horizon:

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.

Well, I don’t mean to sound rigid, but why are Veritatis Splendor or Familiaris Consortio not authoritative enough to warrant inclusion in the discussion? Is your perspective to disregard everything that has gone before and have only the Bible and Amoris Laetitia to support your argument? The progressive argument in this situation seems to be based on reading between the lines of official documents, avoiding discussing any definitive information to the contrary and trying to pass off hearsay, rumour and newspaper interviews as cast-iron Church law and teaching.

If there is such an atmosphere for debate as you say, why are the four Cardinals so desperately attacked? Do you not see the scandal in saying “open for debate” and at the same time saying that the four Cardinals asking five simple questions is “to the detriment of Church unity?”

Whilst I understand you may hold this position in good faith, you must agree that if our faith loses its foundation of reason, by succumbing to arguments based on emotion or sentimentality alone, will not provide credible witness to those outside the Church with whom we are trying to share the Gospel.

 

[Thomas_White]

I am done for the day…let me re consult F1’s response to the Arg Bishops Guidelines first to recheck my position on this one.
Ambiguity is 95% intentional in Magisterial and Canonical docs from my experience.
It’s the Italian/Roman way. That doesn’t mean it is ambiguous, it’s just an acceptable way of keeping everybody “happy” as the carpet is slowly pulled out in an unfamiliar direction.

Though your answer to the question is clear enough (“the carpet is slowly pulled out in an unfamiliar direction”), why is it so difficult to provide an unequivocal answer?

I’ve said what I think. If you believe the answer is “yes”, then just say so.

 

[graciew]

will not provide credible witness to those outside the Church with whom we are trying to share the Gospel.

Witnesses of Hope…

 

[Stat_Crux]

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.

Agreed, Amoris Laetitia needs to be considered in the discussion. It has happened. The issue comes when it is considered in apparent isolation without attempting to explain or reconcile against the teaching, which was always consistent, before now on Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried.

Already in the past few weeks we have seen the confusion in the public discussion of what exactly the Church teaches evolve from the isolated questions of Communion for the civilly D&R in exceptional circumstances to serious discussions of:

• the question of culpability in sins which were always strictly prohibited as intrinsic evils in all circumstances (adultery, abortion etc)
• Whether intrinsically evil acts “even exist any more”
• Denying the need for a firm intention not to repeat a sin when seeking absolution in the Sacrament of Confession
• Whether or not a person’s conscience alone is sufficient to determine whether one is in a State of Grace, without reference to the teachings of the Church or the guidance of a Priest
• Whether or not actively homosexual couples could similarly claim “diminished culpability” in remaining sexually active “for the good of adopted children”
• That through the “internal forum” one may be able to determine for oneself that a previous sacramental marriage “did not exist” in those circumstances where evidence cannot be found to prove it to the satisfaction of an annulment tribunal.

We must remember that Pope St John Paull II’s Familiaris Consortio was itself written after the 1980 Family Synod, and so without considering the content, at least appears to have the same magisterial weight as AL. It seems hard therefore to suggest that AL should not be interpreted consistently with FC, which strictly prohibited Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried under paragraph 84. To suggest that practice has changed would surely be setting “one Pope’s teaching against another’s”.

Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried did not pass the 2/3rd vote required at either the 2014 or 2015 Synods on the Family (read the Relatio Synodi for either Synod and you will not find it mentioned). It would therefore seem to be unreasonable to assume that such a large change in teaching has been “definitively authorised” because of ambiguous wording and the enthusiastic cheerleading of some newly created Cardinals. The Pope has refused to officially put pen to paper to explicitly endorse Communion for the civilly D&R, and until he does we shouldn’t be making speculative thrusts forward beyond Catholic Doctrine to try and justify something that has never been authorised. Such speculation on Catholic belief only adds to the confusion, where none previously existed.

 

[Vico]

Agreed, Amoris Laetitia needs to be considered in the discussion. It has happened. The issue comes when it is considered in apparent isolation without attempting to explain or reconcile against the teaching, which was always consistent, before now on Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried.

Already in the past few weeks we have seen the confusion in the public discussion of what exactly the Church teaches evolve from the isolated questions of Communion for the civilly D&R in exceptional circumstances to serious discussions of:

• the question of culpability in sins which were always strictly prohibited as intrinsic evils in all circumstances (adultery, abortion etc)
• Whether intrinsically evil acts “even exist any more”
• Denying the need for a firm intention not to repeat a sin when seeking absolution in the Sacrament of Confession
• Whether or not a person’s conscience alone is sufficient to determine whether one is in a State of Grace, without reference to the teachings of the Church or the guidance of a Priest
• Whether or not actively homosexual couples could similarly claim “diminished culpability” in remaining sexually active “for the good of adopted children”
• That through the “internal forum” one may be able to determine for oneself that a previous sacramental marriage “did not exist” in those circumstances where evidence cannot be found to prove it to the satisfaction of an annulment tribunal.

We must remember that Pope St John Paull II’s Familiaris Consortio was itself written after the 1980 Family Synod, and so without considering the content, at least appears to have the same magisterial weight as AL. It seems hard therefore to suggest that AL should not be interpreted consistently with FC, which strictly prohibited Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried under paragraph 84. To suggest that practice has changed would surely be setting “one Pope’s teaching against another’s”.

Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried did not pass the 2/3rd vote required at either the 2014 or 2015 Synods on the Family (read the Relatio Synodi for either Synod and you will not find it mentioned). It would therefore seem to be unreasonable to assume that such a large change in teaching has been “definitively authorised” because of ambiguous wording and the enthusiastic cheerleading of some newly created Cardinals. The Pope has refused to officially put pen to paper to explicitly endorse Communion for the civilly D&R, and until he does we shouldn’t be making speculative thrusts forward beyond Catholic Doctrine to try and justify something that has never been authorised. Such speculation on Catholic belief only adds to the confusion, where none previously existed.

Really FC 84 did not say that, nor the CDF Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (14 September 1994)

Rather:

1. repent of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ,
2. sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage,
3. abstain from the acts proper to married couples when not able to satisfy the obligation to separate for serious reasons,
4. avoid giving scandal by communion reception (may need to receive where not known, or secretly).

 

[pnewton]

It seems hard therefore to suggest that AL should not be interpreted consistently with FC, which strictly prohibited Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried under paragraph 84. To suggest that practice has changed would surely be setting “one Pope’s teaching against another’s”

It does not set the teaching of one pope against another, rather the practice. Practice can change. Practice* has* changed a lot over the centuries.

Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried did not pass the 2/3rd vote required at either the 2014 or 2015 Synods on the Family (read the Relatio Synodi for either Synod and you will not find it mentioned). It would therefore seem to be unreasonable to assume that such a large change in teaching has been “definitively authorised” because of ambiguous wording and the enthusiastic cheerleading of some newly created Cardinals. The Pope has refused to officially put pen to paper to explicitly endorse Communion for the civilly D&R, and until he does we shouldn’t be making speculative thrusts forward beyond Catholic Doctrine…

You know what else failed to make it into the synod statements, that a minority wanted? Defining as doctrine that civilly D and R cannot receive communion. I remember that too coming up and being rejected.

It sure seemed clear to me that Pope Francis did not want to define this issue one way or another. First, civilly divorced and remarried Catholics can receive communion sometimes. If an annulment is granted for the first marriage, then they can receive, even though they are civilly divorced and remarried. Second, for all the reasons you mentioned, the reception of communion will never be universal. Even if there is a possibility for someone, it will be a process of spiritual growth and must not violate Catholic doctrine, that which is** explicit** Catholic doctrine.

How this has played out for me so far, in my parish that is, I have a priest which has always wanted something like Pope Francis has proposed. He told me he has already been approached, yet so far he has had to tell people that this was not for them, meaning, their situation was so clearly a state of living in adultery. I think he is going to follow up (not my business), but it is clear that he is not going to be some rubber stamp to bypass the annulment process.

 

[KSU]

It does not set the teaching of one pope against another, rather the practice.

Not even a change in practice (discipline) has been authorized by A.L. There is only a new emphasis on accompaniment in the internal forum to bring D&R people up to speed on Church teaching. Imparting knowledge about God’s will for them has been a priest’s duty pre-A.L. This new emphases is a good and certainly timely thing for confused and/or invincibly ignorant Catholics any way you slice it.

Practice can change. Practice* has* changed a lot over the centuries.

**Only Church-made practice (so-called discipline–e.g.,no meat on Friday) can change. No change in doctrinal-based discipline (e.g., no Communion for D&R adulterers) has ever occurred, and never will. **

You know what else failed to make it into the synod statements, that a minority wanted? Defining as doctrine that civilly D and R cannot receive communion. I remember that too coming up and being rejected.

** Help with a source, please. I’m not disputing it, but that’s a new one on me, and I have been following the matter religiously. What was the need for a vote that a dogma is a dogma? Besides, even a 100% majority vote would have zero authority–doctrine is set in concrete and can’t be changed by a vote.**

It sure seemed clear to me that Pope Francis did not want to define this issue one way or another.

**Now that will get you a majority vote of confirmation. But in fairness to him, it must, at the same time, be acknowledged that the Pope made it clear that doctrine isn’t being changed. So why he did not want to define it explicitly is the big mystery.

Yes, certainly he wants to start a Church-wide debate (success ), but to what end? Discipline based solidly on dogma can’t change because it’s not “mere” Church-made discipline. So, what is going on? Just emphasis on accompaniment and better education in schools and marriage counseling? I’m praying that that will be the eventual clarification. **

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Though your answer to the question is clear enough (“the carpet is slowly pulled out in an unfamiliar direction”), why is it so difficult to provide an unequivocal answer?

I’ve said what I think. If you believe the answer is “yes”, then just say so.

I said I would get back to you after I did some more reading on the question…and I needed to go to work this morning.

Why is this delay in saying yes or no unacceptable to you?

 

[carn]

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.)

Not justified; only not culpable. To take an extreme example, B undressing to have sex with A with A and B being unmarried, is a sin; if A is pressing a gun against B’s head and says: “Undress, so we can have sex, otherwise i pull the trigger”, its still a sin; but its a bit less of a sin for B (and quite a bit more for A). If B now goes to confession and confesses this sin of adultery (which BTW probably could be considered to be venial, so she might even receive the other sacraments without confession) is then her confession invalid, as she saw A waiting outside the Church and looking at her in such way, that she is rather certain the situation will repeat and is rather certain that again she will act as she acted last time?

I would say no. And yes, there would be a host of other question; e.g. where is the police? can’t she go leave through the backdoor and then flee somewhere? is the priest a legasthenic who once tried to order a biretta and got some other item and therefore should get out of the confessional to convince A to do something else than preying on B?; but that does not change her situation, that she confesses the sin of adultery with a reduced culpability and has serious reasons to expect to sin exactly the same way again and again with reduced culpability.

And i try to go from this ridicolous extreme scenario to a scenario, in which something similar arises for two D&R catholics knowing their prior marriages were valid and willing to submit to God’s will.

With just one D&R catholic in the couple and the other “spouse” being “unhelpful” i can get at least close (a “sex or divorce and i take the children and they never hear anything about that madness called catholicism” might not reduce cupability as much as a gun at one’s head; but it certainly would reduce a bit; maybe enough).

But with twi D&R catholics being in civil “marriage” and willing to submit to God’s will, i cannot think up anything; because they should try to help each other instead of hindering each other; so their behavior towards each other should not cause reduced culpability (or if, that is a seperate sin, which would have to be repented, so it should reduce with time); and that leaves some psychological issue to arrive at reduced culpability to even be remotely similar to my A/B-scenario above (except of course we go into real crazy scenarios with some madman forcing D&R couples at gun point to have sex).

That all has to be distinguished from the situation in which a D&R catholic couple is actually currently in their first true and only marriage with any prior marriage beyond any reasonable doubte invalid, but there is some serious hinderance for annulment tribunal to get aware about that undeniable fact (for example because a former “spouse” is blatantly lying and tribunal does not see through this); then the only thing for the couple to actually confess is the sex in their prior “marriages” (which was fornification), but that they obviously do not intent to repeat, and as their current sex is presumably non-sinful (as they are in a true marriage, which annulment tribunal just failed to realize) nothing is barring them from communion except Church’s pastoral rules.

If AL would only be about the last scenario, i would be hard pressed to understand, what the problem is; but it seems to be that AL is also about the other scenarios, in which somehow the reduced culpability clears the path to communion by effecting the need for intent not to sin again; but maybe i am mistaken and AL is only about the last.

And the best way to find out in my opinion is to find a scenario which fits according to someone who understands AL to what is meant by AL (thats because the explanation and AL itself although officially adressed at lay people leave me a bit uncertain what is meant).

I wonder if you have considered how this principle would extend to other sins.

I consider that, when i am certain that AL is also aimed at the “valid confession in spite of lack of intent to not sin again due to also expected reduced culpability in the repetition of sin”-scenarios. I am uncertain about that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Pope Francis notes the same insight of Aquinas A.L. 301. Follow the refs there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In my comment #973, I note that a quote I cite, re: 351, is ambiguous. Do you think Holy Communion would be included in the phrase “help from the sacraments”? My intuition is that this is the intent. Epistemological arguments not withstanding, that’s it.

What do you think?

While some see footnote 351 as ambiguous I have never personally seen it so since I first read AL in its entirety the day it was released. I have not read anything convincing since that day to interpret this “ambiguity” otherwise.

Neither did his own countrymen see anything particularly ambiguous. They picked up exactly what he was saying and made it more explicit in their Argentinian Bishops Draft Guidelines. This was praised by Pope Francis as accurately reflecting AL.

The Draft states:

"5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple
make it feasible, especially when both are
Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to
propose that they make the effort of living in
continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the
difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves
open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of
Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf.
note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John
Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).

1. In other, more complex circumstances, and
   when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of
   nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in
   fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible
   to undertake a journey of discernment. If one
   arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case,
   there are limitations that diminish responsibility
   and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a
   person judges that he would fall into a subsequent
   fault by damaging the children of the new union,
   Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access
   to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the
   Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn
   dispose the person to continue maturing and
   growing with the aid of grace.
2. However, it is necessary to avoid understanding
   this possibility as an unrestricted access to the
   sacraments, or as though any situation might
   justify it. What is proposed is a discernment that
   adequately distinguishes each case. For example,
   “a new union that comes out of a recent divorce”
   or “the situation of someone who has repeatedly
   failed in his family commitments” (298) requires
   special care. [This applies] as well when there is a
   sort of defense or flaunting of the particular
   situation “as if it were part of the Christian ideal”
   (297). In these more difficult cases, the pastors
   must accompany with patience, seeking some way
   of integration (cf. 297, 299).
3. It is always important to guide people to place
   themselves with their conscience before God, and
   for this purpose the “examination of conscience”
   that is proposed by Amoris Laetitia 300 is useful,
   especially where it refers to “how they have
   behaved towards their children” or towards the
   abandoned spouse. When there were unresolved
   injustices, the access to the sacraments is
   particularly scandalous.
4. It might be convenient that an eventual access
   to the sacraments be brought about in a reserved
   way, above all when conflictive situations are
   foreseen. But at the same time one must not cease
   to accompany the community, so that it might
   grow in a spirt of understanding and welcoming,
   without creating confusion regarding the teaching
   of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage.

 

[carn]

Ender:

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.)

Not justified; only not culpable.

To explain that more:
cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/11/anti-amoris-critics-cross-dissent-church-must-move/

That is someone Blue Horizon would probably agree with to some extent:

“And in some, rare cases it might lead, yes, to being admitted to Communion where the lack of subjective culpability is beyond doubt, where, for example, an annulment is impossible, where the marriage is irrecoverable, where there are children by a new union, where a conversion has taken place in a person that creates a new state, and where the notion of ‘adultery’ simply fails to capture a reality. (Father Thomas Reese has suggested the kinds of distinctions Pope John Paul II had in mind in Familiaris Consortio.)”

This is not talking about the issue of an actual valid marriage and invalid prior “marriages” and the tribunal for some reason unable to verify that fact although it is true beyond any reasonable doubt for the person and their pastors; cause in that cases the “notion of “adultery”” does not simply fail to capture a reality; it is simply no adultery if a validly married couple with one or both having prior from the start invalid “marriages” beforehand gets intimate (it might be sinful for other reasons, e.g. because it lacks humility not to wait for the tribunal decision, as it presumes one is clever enough to not need the Church’s official (name removed by moderator)ut in that matter, or it might be sin of pride or a sin regarding the chastity required in marriage, etc.; but that is not adultery).

So somehow this author claims that through “lack of subjective culpability” one can “qualify” for communion and as communion requires from time to time valid confessions, that “lack of subjective culpability” must also lead to a situation, in which the confession is valid because of that “lack of culpability”.

And i am just hunting for a single hypothetical case, that fits to that. And does not contradict Church teaching.

The latter leading to the result, that many things i think up myself fail; but that just means that i did not get it and some other hypothetical case would fit. (actually, this would be over fast, if just one of the numerous “AL fans” around the world, would just describe one such “rare cases”; of course not a real one, but one that would be such a case, if it were a real one; but that has yet to happen)