Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Jon_S_1]

I understand that, but it still the act of adultery where at least one of the persons is in a valid marriage. Where neither party is in a valid marriage, the act is fornication. The level of culpability to the act is a separate question.

How is it a separate question?

Are you saying someone not culpable for sin of grave matter is barred from the sacraments?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Can the following from Cardinal Muller be reconciled with the Pope’s endorsement and the Argentinian document?

Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”

 

[pnewton]

I guess illustrating the contradictions between 2,000 years of Church teaching and current teaching is fruitless (see post #138 quoting FM and contrast with AL)…

It is fruitless because it is begging the question. All logical fallacies are fruitless. You have labeled “teaching” that which is not. We must remember that this very point was a point of disagreement at the two synods, and the minority opinion was that any change would be a change in doctrine. We can quote bishops who believe that the remarried receiving communion is a doctrine, and wanted this to be stated. The Pope and the majority of bishops disagreed with this course of action. AL is a reflection of the work of the magisterium from the synod, which like so much of the growth of the Church is not unanimous. So, while many here may disagree with what the Pope has done, at least acknowledge there is a school of thought, the larger part of the Church that sees no contradiction of doctrine, because it is discipline that is being addressed.

 

[JimG]

Ignore the misleading headlines: the remarried cannot ‘now receive Communion’

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/09/19/ignore-the-misleading-headlines-the-remarried-cannot-now-receive-communion/

From the linked article:

“Some have tried to find a last-ditch justification, by suggesting that the Catholic teaching and practice of the last two millennia has overlooked a theological nuance. A gravely sinful act, they point out, is only a mortal sin if accompanied by full knowledge and full consent. Well, if you live by theological nuance you die by theological nuance, and experts such as Dr Josef Seifert and Fr Brian Harrison have given powerful reasons to think this point is irrelevant. The Catholic tradition, says Seifert, has never attributed “a lack of knowledge” to people breaking fundamental precepts of the moral law; nor, says Fr Harrison, has it attributed “a lack of consent” to adults who consciously choose a sinful course of action over a period of time.”

 

[Brendan]

How is it a separate question?

Are you saying someone not culpable for sin of grave matter is barred from the sacraments?

Yes, Canon 916 bars for mortal sin. Canon 915 bars for manifest grave sin. They are separate Canons for a reason, as they deal with two separate situations.

Canon 916 requires culpability, that the person lack a State of Grace. Canon 915 does not, it requires that the act be grave and the person manifest ( publically known) to persist it in.

Personal loss of Grace cannot be a manifest act, as we cannot know the state of another soul. What we CAN know is if the act is gravely sinful ( gravely offensive to God), and that the person is obstinate in the act.

We see that again in the prohibition of the reception of the Sacraments by those who are excommunicated or under an interdict. The Church cannot declare the state of their soul, but that does not mean that they may present themselves for Holy Communion. They are barred, and that bar is not a judgment on their soul.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree with this. It becomes a serious question of what the difference is with common divorce.

The difference is that if Peter approves, regardless of the failings allegedly involved, it is a publicly acceptable 2nd marriage to Jesus.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand that, but it still the act of adultery where at least one of the persons is in a valid marriage. Where neither party is in a valid marriage, the act is fornication. The level of culpability to the act is a separate question.

I believe your analysis is less than complete.
If the bond does not exist before God (which a Tribunal may not be able to publicly declare for technical reasons) then the couple may in fact be free to marry before God.

Therefore it is not wholly accurate to assume the adultery Jesus spoke of is at play in all cases. It may really only be fornication - and perhaps not even that.

 

[Brendan]

I believe your analysis is less than complete.
If the bond does not exist before God (which a Tribunal may not be able to publicly declare for technical reasons) then the couple may in fact be free to marry before God.

Therefore it is not wholly accurate to assume the adultery Jesus spoke of is at play in all cases. It may really only be fornication - and perhaps not even that.

Given that I was responding to Jon S’s comments

"Whether someone is committing adultery every time they have sex with their invalidly contracted spouse is extremely suspect and up for debate. "

If the marriage is invalidly contracted, it would be either fornication or adultery. So I believe my statement is accurate.

 

[pnewton]

I was thinking of my first reading of Amoris Laetitia, and the one thing that struck me, and keeps getting missed, is the Holy Father wanted for people to be treated as individuals and not categories. Most of the discussion here is exactly the type of thinking that the Holy Father wants his priests to avoid. He state,

The divorced who have entered a new union,
for example, can find themselves in a variety
of situations, which should not be pigeonholed
or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no
room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment.

Yet notes also,

*The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating
factors and situations.
*
It it clear that he want to keep all the rules as they are (that is, the discipline the same.) So the idea that he is going to write more specifics would go against the very point he is making. I know this drives canon lawyers nuts, but the fact is that canon law is in service of the mission of the Church, the Church does not serve canon law.

What I do not get is why anyone would spend time sweating what some priest and some penitent in another country will be doing. I am reminded at times like this of John 21, where Peter, after having a heart felt talk with Jesus about his own future, looks over at John ans starts asking about John’s future. Jesus’ answer must resonate with us if we start to allow His work of mercy with another to cause us consternation: “What is that to you?”

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’ve noticed even Tim Staples and Catholic Answers are defending this now. They were very vocal against Cardinal Kaspers proposal, but this video of Tim Staples seems to fit nicely with the defense of a possibility of divorced and remarried receiving communion

youtu.be/lNA-HLYz1wE

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, Canon 916 bars for mortal sin. Canon 915 bars for manifest grave sin. They are separate Canons for a reason, as they deal with two separate situations.

Canon 916 requires culpability, that the person lack a State of Grace. Canon 915 does not, it requires that the act be grave and the person manifest ( publically known) to persist it in.

Personal loss of Grace cannot be a manifest act, as we cannot know the state of another soul. What we CAN know is if the act is gravely sinful ( gravely offensive to God), and that the person is obstinate in the act.

We see that again in the prohibition of the reception of the Sacraments by those who are excommunicated or under an interdict. The Church cannot declare the state of their soul, but that does not mean that they may present themselves for Holy Communion. They are barred, and that bar is not a judgment on their soul.

I agree with the distinction in Canon Law.

Which makes the case even stronger that barring of certain public acts or states and what is “obstinate” and what is not is a prudential judgement.

Which is essentially the same as saying such a bar is a discipline which may change as culture changes.

Such happened with soldiers who used to be barred from Communion in some regions because they are “killers”.

Yet we eventually reralised not all killers are obstinately evil people.

 

[Richca]

When people view the sin as what it really is it is much simpler.

The sin is the one time act of remarrying.

The idea of continuous adultery is an idea that was put forth from trying to discuss why remarriage is sinful.

Whether someone is committing adultery every time they have sex with their invalidly contracted spouse is extremely suspect and up for debate.

One would find no such teaching in the first probably 1300 or more years of the church.

It is the result of “defining too much”. A critique often leveled on us by the orthodox that is probably with some merit.

So turning away from sin can really mean realizing contracting a second marriage was wrong, repenting of it, and vowing to never do that again.

Adultery is having sexual relations with somebody else’s wife or husband. It is a sin that is repeated in every instance of repeated sexual relations with somebody else’s wife or husband and this includes the sexual relations in objectively invalid second marriages. This has been the teaching of the Church since Christ who promulgated the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage over 2000 years ago. The reason why the Church teaches that for divorced and remarried couples who are without a degree of nullity from the first marriage must live as brother and sister in complete continence if they can’t separate for various reasons in order to approach the sacraments of penance and the eucharist is because sexual relations would be adultery. If your still validly married to someone and you have sexual relations with someone else, this is adultery. (One of the issues in the present debate appears to be trying to find someway out of the living as brother/sister in some cases, and maybe only for a time, and still receive the sacraments. ).The idea that the apostles, church fathers, and scholastic doctors couldn’t comprehend the clear teaching of Christ for 1300 years, I don’t believe is going to hold up to any rational or historical inquiry. Exactly what the practice was in the early church concerning the question at issue, I don’t know as I have not studied it or looked it up. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that the penances for some crimes and sins was quite severe in the early church.

 

[Brendan]

I agree with the distinction in Canon Law.

Which makes the case even stronger that barring of certain public acts or states and what is “obstinate” and what is not is a prudential judgement.

Which is essentially the same as saying such a bar is a discipline which may change as culture changes.
.

No, we can see from Familaris Consortio that it is not changeable

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist

FC 84

Note that the reason is not based on culpability, but rather on an objective truth, that their state is a objective contradiction to the love of Christ and His Church.

Being objective, the existence of that contradiction is not dependent on culture, time or place. It is the existence of that contradiction that forms the bar to reception of Holy Communion.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Adultery is having sexual relations with somebody else’s wife or husband. It is a sin that is repeated in every instance of repeated sexual relations with somebody else’s wife or husband and this includes the sexual relations in objectively invalid second marriages. This has been the teaching of the Church since Christ who promulgated the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage over 2000 years ago. The reason why the Church teaches that for divorced and remarried couples who are without a degree of nullity from the first marriage must live as brother and sister in complete continence if they can’t separate for various reasons in order to approach the sacraments of penance and the eucharist is because sexual relations would be adultery. If your still validly married to someone and you have sexual relations with someone else, this is adultery. (One of the issues in the present debate appears to be trying to find someway out of the living as brother/sister in some cases, and maybe only for a time, and still receive the sacraments. ).The idea that the apostles, church fathers, and scholastic doctors couldn’t comprehend the clear teaching of Christ for 1300 years, I don’t believe is going to hold up to any rational or historical inquiry. Exactly what the practice was in the early church concerning the question at issue, I don’t know as I have not studied it or looked it up. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that the penances for some crimes and sins was quite severe in the early church.

Bolded part above…exactly my point. I have, in fact I am right now for a master’s course at a very orthodox catholic college.

I’d encourage you to look into the issue.

For example did you know that the church did not marry people until about the 1100s?

 

[Richca]

Bolded part above…exactly my point. I have, in fact I am right now for a master’s course at a very orthodox catholic college.

I’d encourage you to look into the issue.

For example did you know that the church did not marry people until about the 1100s?

The point I was trying to make is not concerned so much with history but the fact that the sin of adultery concerns having sexual relations with the wife or husband of somebody else and just as having sexual relations can be repeated so adultery can be repeated. It’s a bad human act as opposed to a virtuous one. It would only be a one time event if one only committed it once, i.e., had intercourse one time with somebody else’s wife or husband.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The point I was trying to make is not concerned so much with history but the fact that the sin of adultery concerns having sexual relations with the wife or husband of somebody else and just as having sexual relations can be repeated so adultery can be repeated. It’s a bad human act as opposed to a virtuous one. It would only be a one time event if one only committed it once, i.e., had intercourse one time with somebody else’s wife or husband.

And yet the sin of sterilization only occurs once even though every sexual act from that point forward is sterile.

 

[rcwitness]

The difference is that if Peter approves, regardless of the failings allegedly involved, it is a publicly acceptable 2nd marriage to Jesus.

Are you suggesting that every annulment ruling is an infallible Papal Magisterial decree?

 

[pnewton]

No, we can see from Familaris Consortio that it is not changeable

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist

There is nothing in the quote above that mention this is unchangeable, or that it is doctrine, as a function of logic and language. It simply does not say “unchangable”. Again, this was taken up at the synod… etc.

Again, the Magesterium, in the form of the last synod, declined to call this doctrine, contrary to the minority opinion.

 

[KSU]

Ignore the misleading headlines: the remarried cannot ‘now receive Communion’

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/09/19/ignore-the-misleading-headlines-the-remarried-cannot-now-receive-communion/

Thank you for that link. It and the links therein capture very well all the various misunderstandings and faulty theology surrounding this issue. It should be required reading for any poster in this thread. Not that it will change many minds, but it will clarify positions of the two camps, help posters to better state their case and judge the veracity of the arguments presented.

The link also finally brings up the truth that, first, this issue is driven not only by straights, but by gays as well; and, second, regardless of whether or not the Magisterium clarifies the issue, the religious right will practice the traditional form of accompaniment and discernment while the religious left will practice the new form a bit more openly.

I fear that Catholicism might for a time become unofficially like the Jewish Faith with Orthodox, Reform and Conservative branches because that would be more than OK for some and of little concern for many pretend Catholics. But of course we must believe that, through the Holy Spirit, either or both the Magisterium and the Sensus Fidelium will act to bring about unity–the first steps are already underway.

The older I get the clearer become the reasons for Christs “hard sayings.” He knew of course that we would need His commands to keep us out of these man-made messes.

Sex and lack of faith are powerful weapons Satan uses to progressively cloud reason and erode the Faith of young people, and then entrap them in irregular marriages and otherwise… Even Our Lady tells us that sins of the flesh are the number one cause of lost souls.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, we can see from Familaris Consortio that it is not changeable

" FC 84 They are unable to be admitted thereto …"

Note that the reason is not based on culpability, but rather on an objective truth, that their state is a objective contradiction to the love of Christ and His Church.

Being objective, the existence of that contradiction is not dependent on culture, time or place. It is the existence of that contradiction that forms the bar to reception of Holy Communion.

Nobody argues the current objective contradiction…we all agree the matter is a grave one.

The issue is whether the linkage of this to denial of Communion is intrinsically theological or merely prudential application.

I see no indication in the above phrase to indicate it could not be a prudential judgement of the Pope re a long standing practice.

Given that Pope Francis is encouraging a pastoral practice that is at odds with your theological interpretation of the above a loyal Catholic would have to admit either:
(a) the above statement is in fact to be interpreted as a long standing but prudential judgment/discipline that does admit of exceptions;
(b) it is what you say it is (an eternal theological truth that those in such a public state can never receive Communion without sacrilege to God) and Pope Francis is a material heretic.

I know which way I, as a loyal Catholic, must choose. I am but a layman.