Moral Theology

[querelous]

I have heard that it is safe to follow a PROBABLE opinion. E.G that the Pope when a teacher at the University said it was a matter of justice that the remarried (without an annulment) could receive Holy Communion. Did he teach that? Is it a probable opinion. ?..

 

[OraLabora]

I have heard that it is safe to follow a PROBABLE opinion. E.G that the Pope when a teacher at the University said it was a matter of justice that the remarried (without an annulment) could receive Holy Communion. Did he teach that? Is it a probable opinion. ?..

Unless we can know the full context of the statement, it’s hard to understand what he was trying to say. If indeed he made such a statement.

Was it a matter of personal opinion, or a statement of Church doctrine? The university context makes me suspicious; universities may be great places for ideas to be debated, but it surely isn’t the place to formulate Church policy and doctrine. The Pope, before he became Pope, passed through a period of discernment and growth in his faith like the rest of us only at greater speed!

What he said in his early days as a teacher, and what he upholds today as Supreme Pontiff, are two completely different matters. It’s the latter that counts. Moreover, as a younger teacher, it is quite possible that he was simply wrong.

In short, I wouldn’t put too much stock in it.

 

[1ke]

I have heard that it is safe to follow a PROBABLE opinion.

Um, no, it is safe to follow what the Church actually teaches.

E.G that the Pope when a teacher at the University said it was a matter of justice that the remarried (without an annulment) could receive Holy Communion.

This statement contradicts Catholic teaching on the matter. Therefore, it cannot be followed. One must form one’s conscience always with the actual teaching of the Church as primary.

Did he teach that?

I doubt it.

Is it a probable opinion. ?..

No, it is a wrong opinion.

 

[tractarian]

It would help if you could say where you heard this, but that “probable opinion” thing only applies in a matter where there is no existing Church teaching on the matter. Like hypothetically, if someone invented a new lasik surgery that could give someone better-than-20-20 vision, some people would balk at how unnatural it is, some would say it isn’t intrinsically immoral, and unless/until there is a definite teaching, you’d be free to follow a ‘probable opinion’ on either side of the issue.

 

[querelous]

Father (as he was then) Ratzinger’s view is quoted by Fr Ladislas Orsy SJ in his book “Marriage in Canon Law” There is a section towards the end of the book called “Problem Areas and Disputed Questions”. Question 13 is “Could persons in irregular marriages be admitted into Eucharistic Communion?” The whole of this Question 13 is worth reading. It is also helpful to look up “Ratzinger” in the index of Fr Orsy’s book…

 

[querelous]

Father (as he was then) Ratzinger’s view is quoted by Fr Ladislas Orsy SJ in his book “Marriage in Canon Law” There is a section towards the end of the book called “Problem Areas and Disputed Questions”. Question 13 is “Could persons in irregular marriages be admitted into Eucharistic Communion?” The whole of this Question 13 is worth reading. It is also helpful to look up “Ratzinger” in the index of Fr Orsy’s book…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I know that some German theologians advanced that opinion; don’t know if
Father Ratzinger was one of them. However, the competent Vatican office declared it wrong; so removed it from the category of probable.

 

[Katholish]

Does “irregular” even refer to re-marry without annulment?

If a first marriage was valid, it is objectively adultery to “re-marry”. The Church would not cosider this a marriage at all, which is why I am wondering about the term “irregular”.

 

[querelous]

Yes. The meaning of “irregular” (in the context in which Fr Orsy uses it) means “not recognised in Canon Law” so invalid. It is those marriages that Fr Orsy is discussing in the question I referred to.