Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Vico]

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 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.

You wrote: “reduced culpability clears the path to communion by effecting the need for intent not to sin again”.

I believe it should really be that whenever there is mortal sin, that proper disposition requires the firm resolve not to sin and to avoid the near occasions of sin. It is is a venial sin then what is required is different. It may be venial when the three elements are not present for mortal sin, one of which is willfulness. These cases normally are about involuntary sin or invincible ignorance.

 

[carn]

You wrote: “reduced culpability clears the path to communion by effecting the need for intent not to sin again”.

For completness, i wrote:
“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.”

meaning i am just trying to understand what others in my eyes suggest.

I believe it should really be that whenever there is mortal sin, that proper disposition requires the firm resolve not to sin and to avoid the near occasions of sin. It is is a venial sin then what is required is different. It may be venial when the three elements are not present for mortal sin, one of which is willfulness. These cases normally are about involuntary sin or invincible ignorance.

Maybe.

But some people defending a certain approach regarding AL claim otherwise:

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/11/anti-amoris-critics-cross-dissent-church-must-move/
"And on the way, what will happen? It might mean ending a relationship and returning to a valid marriage; it might lead to an annulment; in some cases it might lead to re-integration into a parish, but not the sacraments; in some cases it might require living as brother and sister, and a return to the sacraments.

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.)"

Somehow “lack of subjective culpability” leads to valid confession (for otherwise communion not possible) although the person has intimacy in a “second marriage” with the status of the “first marriage” unclear even for the person in question (otherwise the “notion of adultery” could not arise; and the “annullment” and “brother and sister”-solutions are explicitely metion in the paragraph beforehand as different solutions not applicable to the solution of the latter paragraph).

And i cannot name an example for that actually “functioning”, at least in case of two D&R catholics both willing to subject themselves to God’s will (for one D&R catholic remarried to non- or non-helpful-catholic it somehow could work).

 

[Vico]

For completness, i wrote:
“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.”

meaning i am just trying to understand what others in my eyes suggest.

Maybe.

But some people defending a certain approach regarding AL claim otherwise:

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/11/anti-amoris-critics-cross-dissent-church-must-move/
"And on the way, what will happen? It might mean ending a relationship and returning to a valid marriage; it might lead to an annulment; in some cases it might lead to re-integration into a parish, but not the sacraments; in some cases it might require living as brother and sister, and a return to the sacraments.

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.)"

Somehow “lack of subjective culpability” leads to valid confession (for otherwise communion not possible) although the person has intimacy in a “second marriage” with the status of the “first marriage” unclear even for the person in question (otherwise the “notion of adultery” could not arise; and the “annullment” and “brother and sister”-solutions are explicitely metion in the paragraph beforehand as different solutions not applicable to the solution of the latter paragraph).

And i cannot name an example for that actually “functioning”, at least in case of two D&R catholics both willing to subject themselves to God’s will (for one D&R catholic remarried to non- or non-helpful-catholic it somehow could work).

If the firm intention is to remain continent, in those brother and sister cohabitations, and there is failure, that may be confessed and absolved with proper disposition. Those situations make it difficult to avoid the occasions of sin, yet are for grave reason, are acceptable risk per the Church.

Than article states regarding one of the topics that the synod considered – the matter of divorced and remarried:

Let’s remember what happened. At the start of the two-year synod process, there were two groups wanting to resolve the question of access to the Eucharist for the divorced and remarried one way or the other.

One group wanted to open up an Orthodox-type pathway back to the sacraments, the other wished to restate and reaffirm the teaching and discipline of Familiaris Consortio (John Paul II’s 1980 exhortation, which on that topic calls for discernment of different situations, but precludes any return to the sacraments unless the couple promises to live together as brother and sister.)
…
The synod affirmed the general principles of FC but developed John Paul’s teaching on the discernment of situations while refusing to impose the same blanket ban on readmission in all cases.

They do not mention the CDF Statement from 1994 by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, with footnote from Pope Benedict XVI from 2005:

2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “ those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

I would note that the exception is not limited to the circumstances when “a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Latitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”

It is beyond question that this represents a radical change in Church doctrine.

 

[Ender]

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

Your assumptions are rarely warranted.

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?

Your choice of terms is unhelpful. Is “engaging in grave matter” the same as “committing grave sin”? As for being responsible for the consequences of our actions, sometimes we are, sometimes we are not. We are responsible for those we could reasonably foresee, but we bear no responsibility for outcomes that could in no way be predicted. Still, if you believe people are responsible for the temporal consequences of their actions then you should be willing to accept that those in civil, second marriages may not receive communion inasmuch as that is a direct consequence of that act.
1650 *If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. *
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I would further note that “subsequent fault”, as quoted in my comment above (#1053), is in reference to the grave sin of adultery.