Please answer this question about church doctrine, if possible:

[FrDavid96]

@FrDavid96: Thanks for these thoughts, but there is one issue i do not understand:

You seem to indicate here, that JPII was not adressing rules.

But for example in Veritatis Splendor Nr. 90:
“90. The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the unconditional respect due to the insistent demands of the personal dignity of every man, demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit without exception actions which are intrinsically evil.”

there seems to be clearly a rule prohibiting the individual without exception to do something, which would be an intrinsically evil action.

I understand that from that one cannot conclude that anyone acting against this prohibition sinned or sinned to the full extent the prohibition implies; also anyone acting in such prohibited way should be helped by the Church to not repeat the actions.

But that does not change, that JPII not only discusse objects but also rules.

I did limit myself to the paragraph from JP2 that was quoted, so keep that in mind. I wasn’t trying to say that JP2 never talked about rules, only that the 2 paragraphs from the 2 pontiffs addressed slightly different aspects.

Yes, an intrinsically evil act. However HH Francis is more nuanced on the issue of culpability.

Could it be, that its more precisely to say, that JPII did not discuss the rules of pastoral care regarding potential intrinsically evil acts, but only the rules for the individual in the situation of deciding whether to act in such way (for which the rule seems to be simple: Don’t.), while Pope Francis is concerned with the rules of pastoral care, which govern how the Church or her “agents” should act towards someone in the past, currently or in the future was/is/will be in situations, where the risk of performing intrinsically evil acts is present?

So JPII discussed objects in general and rules regarding the individual while Pope Francis discusses the respective rules for pastoral care?

That is my initial impression—the last sentence here.
Keep in mind, the context that I’m posting here. I’m not writing a thesis.

I will point out that HH Francis writes about making confession available. That makes it clear that he is saying that sins are being committed—he isn’t denying the sins.

Thereby you indirectly seem to claim, that several years ago similar dubia would have received quick, definite and publically low-profile answers (to avoid the public shame for cardinals to ask questions average RCIA graduates can answer by themselves) and that a similar poll in this forum would be more strongly inclined towards “yes” (*); correct?

(*Though of course currently only 8 people voted, so not a meaningful number)

Hold on here. I’m not making any kind of claims about how (how quickly, or in what manner) a dubia might have been answered. Not directly nor indirectly.

I have said in CAF threads that JP2’s style of teaching is more direct, and has more clarity, while Francis’ teaching style is more nuanced and frankly, sometimes difficult to understand. That’s very different from making any claims about the mechanics of how any pope might respond to a question from cardinals–that part of the conversation cannot be anything other than speculation, and I’m not going to address that at all.

NOTE: I’m posting the above, but I’m otherwise occupied at my desk. I will probably need to come back to this later. I’m saying that I may need to edit what I wrote in this post.

 

[carn]

That is my initial impression—the last sentence here.

But that sounds like so-to-say a tricky thing; keeping the individual rule of not committing intrinsically evil acts but having more nuance in the pastoral rule.

Reason is that pastoral care often includes advice about individual rule; and after being told, that one should not commit intrinsic evil acts, a reduced culpability is more difficult to justify.

Hold on here. I’m not making any kind of claims about how (how quickly, or in what manner) a dubia might have been answered. Not directly nor indirectly.

Sorry, i forgot to include a @e_c or maybe i should have made another post; e_c wrote:

The Dubia are very simple and very clear. They are so clear in fact, and so simple, that prior to AL, the average RCIA graduate probably would have been able to answer the sense of each of them correctly with confidence.

and i was asking him whether that does not amount to such conclusions/claims.

 

[e_c]

Hold on here. I’m not making any kind of claims about how (how quickly, or in what manner) a dubia might have been answered. Not directly nor indirectly.

I have said in CAF threads that JP2’s style of teaching is more direct, and has more clarity, while Francis’ teaching style is more nuanced and frankly, sometimes difficult to understand. That’s very different from making any claims about the mechanics of how any pope might respond to a question from cardinals–that part of the conversation cannot be anything other than speculation, and I’m not going to address that at all.

That last bit was directed at me.

Thereby you indirectly seem to claim, that several years ago similar dubia would have received quick, definite and publically low-profile answers (to avoid the public shame for cardinals to ask questions average RCIA graduates can answer by themselves) and that a similar poll in this forum would be more strongly inclined towards “yes” (*); correct?

(*Though of course currently only 8 people voted, so not a meaningful number)

There would not have even been occasion for it. But if similar questions were asked, then yes, they would have been answered pretty easily. The problem here is that the clarity ruins the ambiguity of the letter of AL - and it seems very much that the Holy Father wants things to be ambiguous. The man is not trying to “change Church teaching” as many say: he genuinely thinks that he is authentically interpreting the Faith by calling attention to the “gray areas” of human life. He is wrong - but he is certainly not a formal heretic. I have twisted and turned myself into a pretzel trying to defend numerous statements of the Holy Father, but it is time to call a spade a spade, which is what the four cardinals have done, albeit quite indirectly and very respectfully. He’s just wrong, and is publicly disseminating (not “teaching”) his private opinion.

The answers to the dubia are, of course:

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is the critical issue.

And it was botched in AL. Badly. The appeal to Thomas’s passage on the idea of “exceptions” to general principles of the natural law (which has been reiterated since in an interview) was illegitimate. There are not exceptions to Divine Law (which regards sacramental marriage, the only confusing situation being the incorrect presumption of the death of one’s spouse - which is NOT about divorce and remarriage, but about dissolution), and exceptions to general principles of the natural law must be due to the application of some special principle which must be explainable… The starving poor man who takes some bread without paying does not steal. Why? Urgent necessity renders all creation as it truly is apart from private ownership: given to everyone. (And this can easily be elaborated upon by further explanation, with an investigation into the nature of ownership and human law.) There was no such attempt to explain why persons who either won’t approach a tribunal or did approach a tribunal and were denied an annulment are suddenly freed (or maybe freed after “discernment” on the internal forum) from the very condition which necessitates such a mechanism in the first place. The even weirder thing is that none of this deals with canon 915, as it aims to, but rather 916… The conflation is shocking, no less so than the recent faux pas over giving “faculties to absolve” women who have procured an abortion (all priests who have faculties can absolve this sin, it is rather the lifting of the censure which needs special permission - and one can have the sin without the crime, and even with the censure it can be bypassed and deferred by a priest without the competency to lift it, given the correct circumstances, as canon 1357 tells us). One must wonder who exactly is drafting these documents which deal with delicate (and obvious) aspects of canon law and is getting things so wrong. 915 binds the minister, not the communicant… It doesn’t even necessarily have to do with whether one is in a state of grace or not… THAT’S what 916 is about.

The Dubia are very simple and very clear. They are so clear in fact, and so simple, that prior to AL, the average RCIA graduate probably would have been able to answer the sense of each of them correctly with confidence.

The answer to the OP is YES. OF COURSE we have to regard the prior teaching as true. It was not a new teaching, after all… read the language of the question (and the other dubia).

We ought to accompany persons in these difficult situations. But we accompany them on the way to conversion, not just sitting still with them… When we go to a lost sheep, we don’t just stay there with it indefinitely, we attempt to bring it back.

The word ‘exceptions’ does not appear in AL par. 304. Thomas is referring to an individual’s circumstances mitigating their adherence to natural law. Mitigating not exempting.

I’m not sure what your referring to when you mention canon law 915 and 916. They both apply to pastors, not laity, right?

I agree about the dubia. The answers seem pretty obvious. But, I think the wording of the dubia is poor. Its asking for a simple answer to a hypothetical question without really delving into any detail concerning the hypothetical individual. Simply put, I think giving the obvious answer (no you can’t receive communion) would cause more harm than good. Pope Francis is trying to reverse the damage that has been done to marriage by decades of bad cultural influences. He won’t be successful by giving general answers to complex problems.

 

[e_c]

The word ‘exceptions’ does not appear in AL par. 304. Thomas is referring to an individual’s circumstances mitigating their adherence to natural law. Mitigating not exempting.

I’m not sure what your referring to when you mention canon law 915 and 916. They both apply to pastors, not laity, right?

I agree about the dubia. The answers seem pretty obvious. But, I think the wording of the dubia is poor. Its asking for a simple answer to a hypothetical question without really delving into any detail concerning the hypothetical individual. Simply put, I think giving the obvious answer (no you can’t receive communion) would cause more harm than good. Pope Francis is trying to reverse decades of damage to marriage. He won’t be successful by giving general answers to complex problems.

Have you read the Article that AL refers to?

915 is about those administering Holy Communion. 916 is about those receiving Holy Communion. It is night and day. A minister may have just seen a man heist a bank last night and know that the money is in the man’s pockets as he approaches to receive the next morning - he must distribute Holy Communion to him. On the other hand, a man who is privately abstaining from the marital act and is in the state of grace but has not renounced publicly his second union after a marriage which was not dissolved or annulled must be denied Holy Communion if attempting to receive in public - it can be administered privately, which is the appropriate use of discernment on the internal forum.

The questions weren’t “off the cuff.” 4 very sound minds took their time. They are worded very well… Note the use of the language about still regarding such and such as valid teaching.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry, i forgot to include a @e_c

You did. I missed it.

or maybe i should have made another post; e_c wrote:

I do think that’s better. Multi-quoting can cause exactly that confusion which I had.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Have you read the Article that AL refers to?

915 is about those administering Holy Communion. 916 is about those receiving Holy Communion. It is night and day. A minister may have just seen a man heist a bank last night and know that the money is in the man’s pockets as he approaches to receive the next morning - he must distribute Holy Communion to him. On the other hand, a man who is privately abstaining from the marital act and is in the state of grace but has not renounced publicly his second union after a marriage which was not dissolved or annulled must be denied Holy Communion if attempting to receive in public - it can be administered privately, which is the appropriate use of discernment on the internal forum.

The questions weren’t “off the cuff.” 4 very sound minds took their time. They are worded very well… Note the use of the language about still regarding such and such as valid teaching.

I guess the principle your asking for, Thomas calls “practical reason”. I think that would fall under ‘mitigating’ one’s adherence to natural law.

The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all.

newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

Canon 916 refers to the celebrant, thats the priest who says the mass.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM

 

[carn]

Canon 916 refers to the celebrant, thats the priest who says the mass.

I see there an “or” causing 916 being both applicable to priest who say mass and to people presenting themselves for communion:

“Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”

is equal to this two sentences:

“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.” (This is relevant for priests)
and

“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.” (this is relevant for everybody)

 

[e_c]

I guess the principle your asking for, Thomas calls “practical reason”. I think that would fall under ‘mitigating’ one’s adherence to natural law.

Canon 916 refers to the celebrant, thats the priest who says the mass.

It is not simply about practical wisdom. The analogy in civil law is equity… But one must know about the three levels of natural law to know when principles are applying and when they are not. See his treatment of polygamy among the patriarchs.

916 does talk about celebrants (and concelebrants), but AL has naught to do with that. It also talks about reception, period.

Can. 916 — Qui conscius est peccati gravis, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam ne celebret neve Corpori Domini communicet, nisi adsit gravis ratio et deficiat opportunitas confitendi; quo in casu meminerit se obligatione teneri ad eliciendum actum perfectae contritionis, qui includit propositum quam primum confitendi.

vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/latin/documents/cic_liberIV_lt.html#TITULUS_III

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Canon 916 refers to the celebrant, thats the priest who says the mass.

It refers to both.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Yes, it applies to the priest, with regard to actually being the celebrant. The part about “not receive the Body of the Lord” refers to anyone, cleric or lay, who is in that situation.

 

[carn]

The answers seem pretty obvious.

Begging the question, why the 4 cardinals did not simply receive the answers non-public together with a polite request by the Pope to not use the answers to publically agitate against AL.

But, I think the wording of the dubia is poor. Its asking for a simple answer to a hypothetical question without really delving into any detail concerning the hypothetical individual.

The dubia are about teaching of Church and try to be yes/no questions; they do not seem to relate to any hypothetical individual or scnarioe; and the wording looks ok, as the main wording requirement of a yes/no question is, that it is a yes/no question.

Maybe you mean the general presentation, which implies at least scepticism regarding the implementation of AL?

Simply put, I think giving the obvious answer (no you can’t receive communion) would cause more harm than good.

That is not a problem of wording.

Currently i think the issue is more that Pope Francis tries to make a adjustment to pastoral care, which the 4 consider to be risky in respect to ending in contradiction of Church teaching, while Pope Francis does not think it will.

A bit like if someone wants to make complicated rebuild of an interior of the house and just during that some other inhabitants suggest that he should stop because he might do serious structural damage; but the former thinks there is no such risk or at least its not that large and therefore is a bit annoyed about the critics disturbing him during the complicated work, maybe even angering him (as it might just cause errors on his side which only then lead to serious structural damage); the critics nonetheless fear damage whether they remain silent or not and therefore simply try to stop him; such a discussion would not necessarily be nice.

But that is probably at best an incomplete picture.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The dubia are about teaching of Church and try to be yes/no questions; they do not seem to relate to any hypothetical individual or scnarioe; and the wording looks ok, as the main wording requirement of a yes/no question is, that it is a yes/no question.

Maybe you mean the general presentation, which implies at least scepticism regarding the implementation of AL?

There are hypothetical scenarios in questions 1 and 3. I have them bolded here.

Doubt number 1:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?

Doubt number 3:

After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

AL is about pastors and laity dealing with the complex reality of families. I believe answering the dubia directly sends the wrong message. Answering those simple questions seems contrary to the purpose of AL.

Pope Francis has apparently answered the 4 Cardinals indirectly.

The Dean of the Roman Rota went on to clarify that the Pope did not have to strip the four senior cardinals of their “cardinalate”, but that he could do it. He went on to confirm what many commentators have suspected that Pope Francis’ interview with Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops, was the Holy Father’s indirect response to the cardinals’ dubia:

During the conference, Pius Vito made clear to those present that the Pope did not respond directly to these four cardinals, “but indirectly told them that they only see white or black, when there are shades of color in the Church.”

ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/dean-of-roman-rota-warns-pope-could-strip-dubia-cardinals-of-their-cardinalate

 

[commenter]

NOTE: I’m posting the above, but I’m **otherwise ********occupied ******at my desk. I will probably need to come back to this later. I’m saying that I may need to edit what I wrote in this post.

You have other duties besides posting on CAF? Well, I guess that’s ok, but seems like a slippery slope to me…

 

[FrDavid96]

You have other duties besides posting on CAF? Well, I guess that’s ok, but seems like a slippery slope to me…

It was lunchtime.