Pope Francis needs to clarify Amoris Laetitia, says Dutch cardinal

[KMG]

It’s really offensive to claim that suddenly we care about “pastoral” matters thanks to the current pontificate. That’s the direct implication of the assertion that AL…which I have read cover to cover…“forces bishops and priests” to actually be spiritual fathers." How offensive indeed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s not going to damage the Church. If anything, Pope Francis is doing more to heal the Church and bring people into it, who otherwise turned away from religion. I’ve seen people looking at the Catholic Church, who before Pope Francis, saw it as hypocritical.

Also, I don’t see the Pope as liberal nor did I view Pope Benedict XVI as a conservative.

I don’t align myself with political ideologies. To do so is to follow the ideology of the Antichrist.

Jim

 

[stpurl]

Might I ask for source that ‘grave sin and mortal sin are not the same thing?’

I am sure that at some point in the last 60 or so years of chaos and ‘teachings’ that some people, even theologians, may have ‘mentioned’ this so-called ‘grave sin’ and put it in ‘opposition’ to ‘mortal sin’.

But a few theologians opinions do not a Church teaching make.

There is no difference between ‘grave sin’ and ‘mortal sin’.

There is only a difference between objective mortal sin (which is what both grave and mortal sin are) for which a person has full culpability (i.e., sufficient knowledge and full consent) or lessened culpability. Lessened culpability is NOT, repeat NOT, ‘grave sin that is not mortal’. It is grave sin that is mortal but the person MAY not have been able to freely consent or have truly had knowledge. Once however the person has knowledge one may no longer claim innocence through ignorance. And with regard to full consent, even in the face of danger and death one is not so coerced that one may not choose the right way.

So yes, I believe you are wrong. I had the Baltimore catechism as well. TWO sins, mortal and venial, not THREE sins, mortal, grave, and venial.

 

[Ender]

I’m curious to know if anyone commenting on AL - here on the forums, in the news sources, and even various bishops and clergy - have actually carefully read the document cover-to-cover.

Whether the laity understand the document is irrelevant. What is undeniable is that various bishops have interpreted the document in diametrically opposed ways. That is the problem.

I may be wrong on this, but the only thing I remember from my Baltimore Catechism days that can cut us off from Communion is being in a state of mortal sin, not grave sin.

Canon 915, which directs the minister to withhold communion, does so on the condition of grave sin; it does not turn on whether the individual is in a state of mortal sin.

…others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

 

[KMG]

It’s also not all about personal culpability.

It’s also about public scandal.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I would not have expected this from the most senior Catholic cleric in the Netherlands, all the same I welcome it.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Canon 915 directs the minister to withhold Communion when a person is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin…” The question is, what does it mean to obstinately persevere and who is the one who determines that someone is obstinately persevering? It would seem to me that the canon itself points to the minister of Communion as the one who makes such a determination.

Also, Pope Francis himself, in AL, speaks of this exact same thing. I don’t remember the exact paragraph number off the top of my head, but I believe he talks about it in chapter 6 or 7. He says that when someone flaunts their “irregular” situation as if the church ought to accept it, then they ought not to be admitted.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Very true. Which is why when JPII opened Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried who agreed to live as brother and sister, he said that great effort needed to be made to avoid causing scandal to the faithful. Pope Francis also says as much in AL.

But I would agree with you. The biggest issue is the risk of public scandal. Again, between the process of discernment and the effort needed to avoid scandal, this is why I think that AL actually creates more work for bishops and pastors.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Code of Canon Law itself seems to make the distinction between “grave sin” and “mortal sin.” It doesn’t ask whether a sin is mortal or venial, but simply states that those who obstinately persist in manifest (i.e. public) grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion. The level of culpability for this state of grave sin is not brought up, at least not in canon 915.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

First of all, you are correct. I ought not to have made the assertion that I did regarding bishops and priests being forced to be spiritual fathers now. That was uncharitable of me, and I thank you for calling me out.

That being said, I did not make the claim that the Church suddenly cares about pastoral matters thanks to the current pontificate. I recognize that the Church has always cared very deeply about pastoral matters. But what was said in the two Synods on the Families, and what was reiterated by Pope Francis in AL, is that we live now in a very different situation than we did in the 1980s, when the last Synod on the Family was held and when JPII wrote his wonderful Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The biggest question of the Synods and of AL has been: How do we respond to the current global crisis of the family in a way that is faithful to the teachings of the Church, but addresses the very real issues that people have?

One can argue for or against success of AL in terms of its faithfulness to Tradition. At the moment I’ve not reached any conclusions myself. But I do think that if the former head of the CDF says that it can be interpreted in a way consistent with Tradition, then that’s how we ought to interpret it.

 

[Ender]

Canon 915 directs the minister to withhold Communion when a person is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin…” The question is, what does it mean to obstinately persevere…

To obstinately persevere is to continue the condition with no intent to change even after having been informed of the sinfulness of the situation. This would apply to the divorced and remarried.

… and who is the one who determines that someone is obstinately persevering? It would seem to me that the canon itself points to the minister of Communion as the one who makes such a determination.

Yes, it is an obligation on the person distributing communion. It is also an obligation from which he cannot be excused, that is, no one has the authority to direct him not to do what the canon commands him to do.

In practice I would expect this to be the obligation of the local priest, but one of the key points is that the condition must be manifest; it must be public knowledge, and not something known to the priest alone.

 

[Ender]

Very true. Which is why when JPII opened Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried who agreed to live as brother and sister, he said that great effort needed to be made to avoid causing scandal to the faithful. Pope Francis also says as much in AL.

The concern for scandal is why those living as brother and sister, while they can receive communion, cannot receive it publicly.

Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Declaration, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)