Stealing vs. Murder vs. Adultery

[e_c]

Nor do I see the intrinsic problem with a group of people (let alone one) wearing a rainbow patterned garment in Church to celebrate Noah’s Covenant day and accordingly receiving Communion…just as I have never had an intrinsic problem with Catholics being cremated.
What exactly is the issue for you?

If you live in the USA, then I should not have to explain it to you. And notice I said “pretext.” Perhaps, you do not understand that c. 915 could and usually should be applied in such a situation. Well… okay, you don’t understand it. Go tell Abp. Flynn.

 

[Rau]

Its not sensitive language Rau, its theology in action.
JP2 has never been a wilting violet in condemning sin and now you think he and others pussyfoot rather than accept the possibility that we perfecti don’t need to actually challenge our own take on theology or Canon Law of marriage .

If you think AL and the discernment process and the priest’s assessment of the first marriage is not only of no great consequence but not even to be considered even objectively possible by the priest (mere speculation) I think you have under-estimated the seriousness of the process Rau.

While the tribunal and the DP are certainly different both have objective elements to them by the authorities involved. Jurisdictions are clearly different but if the Popes admit tribunals regularly fail people then Popes clearly see worthwhile objective decisions can still be made outside of that arena and indeed the very statement he made is an objective one.

I think you are asserting and speculating. I’m trying to tie my opinions closely to what can be supported by what is written in AL or elsewhere.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This seems analogous to why the D&R - living in continence - are denied public communion

Given my understanding of AL to date I prophesy this will change
I will post you a money order for 10 Big Macs that within 5 years they may in fact receive in their own Church where they are known.

The reason is simple, and I think you have also touched on it before, as does AB Fernandez in his recent talk.

There actually is no practical public scandal of substance in such suddenly receiving in their own parish because nobody really knows why couples suddenly may.
If a couple gets an annulment, regularly kept private, and there is no reading of the banns, sorry nullities, then how on earth do people not get scandalised over this? Noone actually cares but assumes the best. The PP surely knows and he is the only one who needs to know.

So lets face it, if the abstainers and those with AL passes in Argentina suddenly start entering the Communion Stadium exactly where lies the end of the world scandal?

Secondly, divorce in the 2000s is not the scandal it was in the 1960s when such pariahs, if they ever came to Church, were clearly known by the black halo around their heads - and why would they come to Church anyways just to be rejected. That situation no longer obtains, though it may well have in Poland in 1981 when FS was written.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you are asserting and speculating. I’m trying to tie my opinions closely to what has been said/written.

What do you think “discernment” means - just a disingenuous way of getting people to totally conform to old school Sacramental rules like the business as usual Phily Guidelines demonstrate.

Sounds dangerously like Ender’s sophisticated yet essentially totalitarian and conformist “theology” of conscience.

 

[e_c]

Given my understanding of AL to date I prophesy this will change
I will post you a money order for 10 Big Macs that within 5 years they may in fact receive in their own Church where they are known.

The reason is simple, and I think you have also touched on it before, as does AB Fernandez in his recent talk.

There actually is no practical public scandal of substance in such suddenly receiving in their own parish because nobody really knows why couples suddenly may.
If a couple gets an annulment, regularly kept private, and there is no reading of the banns, sorry nullities, then how on earth do people not get scandalised over this? Noone actually cares but assumes the best. The PP surely knows and he is the only one who needs to know.

So lets face it, if the abstainers and those with AL passes in Argentina suddenly start entering the Communion Stadium exactly where lies the end of the world scandal?

Secondly, divorce in the 2000s is not the scandal it was in the 1960s when such pariahs, if they ever came to Church, were clearly known by the black halo around their heads - and why would they come to Church anyways just to be rejected. That situation no longer obtains, though it may well have in Poland in 1981 when FS was written.

You do not seem to understand how the principle of good faith works. And I also bet you don’t have any actual pastoral experience in a parish. People know a lot, because people talk a lot.

You also seem not to understand what “scandal” actually means. Arguably, it is more scandalous now than back then.

 

[Rau]

What do you think “discernment” means - just a disingenuous way of getting people to totally conform to old school Sacramental rules like the business as usual Phily Guidelines demonstrate.

I don’t think AL calls on us to “discern between the lines”. Hopefully we can read a document and discern its meaning (mostly) from the lines.

I think on this thread, you’ve tended to express views which aren’t observable in AL, though may not be rejected in AL either.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you live in the USA,

Excellent, you agree then the judgement of what constitutes grave scandal is essentially relativistic and therefore a prudential judgement which varies by time, place, education and knowledge of facts.

Clearly you also do not realise the LGBT “Rainbow Flag” is traditionally 6 colours while that of Noah is traditionally 7.

So even on objective grounds your wonderful example is a crock..

Which just goes to show that “adultery” as that which is hateful to God is not to be too strongly judged merely by the senses, nor objectively proven simply by a Wizard of Oz tribunal ruling but by reason.

Just as aircraft “blackboxes” are not black but orange, regardless of what fallible human rules and judgements may sometimes try to assert.

Which is why “adultery” is not always adultery.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think AL calls on us to “discern between the lines”. Hopefully we can read a document and discern its meaning (mostly) from the lines.

I think on this thread, you’ve tended to express views which aren’t observable in AL, though may not be rejected in AL either.

Rau if AL did not assume some objectivity possible from the appointed Priest in the DP it would be a very lightweight document indeed.

The Pope is incredibly smart, and given the statements past Popes have been increasingly making re the limitations of tribunals, which PF is clearly cogniscant of, I can see no other reading of AL. Its just a matter of joining the dots.

I don’t think I have been tracking flyspots on my glasses these last 6 years.
Entirely possible of course .

But I do believe my glasses are far cleaner than some here!
Hence my confident prophecy below…which you havent taken up yet.
Its only open for 24 hrs .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And I also bet you don’t have any actual pastoral experience in a parish.

Assumptions on assumptions on assumptions.
See what your myopic world view causes you to mistakenly say .

First you opine I cannot have studied Canon Law,
then you opine I am in an irregular marriage because of my views,
now you opine I have never had pastoral experience because of other views.

Your hubris has no end.

In fact I worked full time as pastoral assistant to the PP in a busy city Church for 3-4 years after obtaining my theology qualifications.

Of course, as with all hubris, you will not apologise but will go on to say that I must have been useless at it because of my views…just as you said of my CL studies.

Friend, get a life and a new attitude, you are spiritually very unhealthy.

 

[e_c]

Blue, let me take you on a little tour of your treatment of me over the past few days. Here are just a few of your disrespectful, inarticulate, errant, and sometimes personally judgmental screeds.

Why would you with your lay status, lack of theology and pastoral experience (to say nothing of the charism possessed by Pope Francis) dare to personally and publicly judge otherwise?

What a load of airy fairy nonsense.

I am politely observing your arguments are meaningless rhetoric and at best can only monkey mimic a real theologian, but prove inflexible in a debate at lay hands because monkeys dont really understand the principles behind the theologian’s set pieces and cannot well adapt them to different questions or contexts which is always the case in a discussion.
It is accepted as rediculous for laymen to dogmatically debate the discussions of rocket scientists and suggest someone is in error or cannot assert this or that. Yet inept laity feel their baptism, a quick reading of the CCC, secondary school RE lessons and divine inspiration somehow qualifies them to swing lead even a Dominican Professor would fear to rope out.

There is a well known developmental issue discoverable by pointing a finger. Some children keep looking at the finger instead of the thing pointed to.

To seriously entertain the notion, as you do, indicates a moral immaturity that only the Holy Spirit can assist you with…not a CAF discussion no matter how informed or intelligent.

As I say, the problem is hardness of heart even amongst good Catholics like yourself.
We all know Jesus encountered the same amongst his own.
But for some reason that type of person thinks that simply being in possession of the new Christian teaching this means they have moved beyond being the sort of people Jesus challenged.
…
You simply will not grow in peace, harmony and more gentle thoughts re AL, Pope Francis and the Church until you first get over your first stage of grief…denial of what he actually is saying.

If you think the absolute underlying realities of life are finally determined before God by a fallible human tribunal and a Papally authorised priest may not come to an equally tentative yet equally morally conclusive decision … and act accordingly in a limited jurisdiction over his exercise of the Sacraments in their regard … then you have I suggest lost touch not only with who is in charge of the Church but with common reason and reality itself.
But then that seems to be a common failing in scribe and lawyer types as both Jesus and Pope Francis have repeatedly noted.

Your patronising tone above, your constant inability to handle even mild ambiguity which is actually clear in context, your morally judging negative interpretation of such ambiguity and then when corrected your older brother need to say “good to hear it” all point to the excessively authoritatian, rigid, less than compassionate and sexually preoccupied tone Pope Francis well identified as problematic in this discussion.

It is little wonder you and personalities like you cannot fathom AL.
It is clear enough but not to those of an excessively authoritarian and over systematised understanding of the real world.

You either get it or you dont. Its one of those self evident things like the following visual trick:

You really havent grasped the nature of the discerment process yet it seems .

So much is unclear for you I think you should just let go of what you think you know and be humbly guided by Churchmen more experienced, authoritive and pastoral than yourself.

If for all your opposition you cannot see that this actually is the new order allowed by PF then you really are lost on this one.

One would have to be somewhat bereft of reason to believe PF has not approved the above for those Ordinaries who allow their Priests to discern and decide just as I have suggested.

Are you really maintaining that the Argentinian or Maltese bishops are breaching Canon Law by implementing Guidelines that PF is clearly OK with?

That’s a somewhat extreme and unCatholic position for a humble layman to publicly take I would think.

 

[e_c]

CONT’D

May I humbly observe it is you who repeatedly cannot understand people who do not adhere to your rather neat and tidy rationalised view of the world and life before God.

An intelligent person who keeps seeing specks where others are mystified would conclude the discrepancies are due not to objective reality as such but the personal lenses through which we view reality.

You seem most unwilling to even entertain the possibility that your visual errors and confusions are due to your dirty glasses.
…
What is it with you authoritarian legal beagle types that only your view is correct.

What a Jekyl and Hyde psyche legal beagles like yourself must have.

No wonder you think that actually uncertain hollow technical adultery is more malicious before God than the red blooded actively indifferent and hateful ones that Jesus rejected.

For you its all about disrespecting the fallible legal system - it doesn’t matter at all what the true on the ground reality actually is or whether the system is actually in error on limit cases or whether the victim actually thinks anything at all about legal/spiritual niceties in their initial difficulties let alone “disrespects”.

Clearly you will be confused by PopeF’s battlefield moral analogy and even Jesus’s doctor’s are for the sick not the healthy analogy.

Which contrary worldview is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism.

You can make up arbitrary laws to bann such things if you like - but people who do otherwise are hardly breaking natural law … though you will think them exceedingly evil for daring to make timeless and eternally wise Authority lose face (not that the most worthy ones are usually even thinking of such esoteric authority considerations in seeking a modicum of survival the best way they know how and according to their own moral compasses).

For you that seems worse than murder or viscious divorcing and remarrying by lustful men.

And now…

Assumptions on assumptions on assumptions.
See what your myopic world view causes you to mistakenly say .

First you opine I cannot have studied Canon Law,
then you opine I am in an irregular marriage because of my views,
now you opine I have never had pastoral experience because of other views.

Your hubris has no end.

In fact I worked full time as pastoral assistant to the PP in a busy city Church for 3-4 years after obtaining my theology qualifications.

Of course, as with all hubris, you will not apologise but will go on to say that I must have been useless at it because of my views…just as you said of my CL studies.

Friend, get a life and a new attitude, you are spiritually very unhealthy.

I think I have been quite polite with you Blue, and I have offered limited speculation on you and your background. I did not say “I know you have no pastoral experience,” for example, nor did I form a real judgment on your own marriage, but rather added “If I am understanding you correctly.”

Now, Blue, respectfully, please reconsider your approach to public debate. I am very embarrassed for you.

 

[Rau]

Rau if AL did not assume some objectivity possible from the appointed Priest in the DP it would be a very lightweight document indeed.

OK…

The Pope is incredibly smart, and given the statements past Popes have been increasingly making re the limitations of tribunals, which PF is clearly cogniscant of, I can see no other reading of AL. Its just a matter of joining the dots.

Or it could be just be an attempt at mind-reading. There would appear to be no need to buy into an idea about what AL says unless we can see that it actually says that. It seems very reasonable to await the replacement of speculation by statement.

 

[Rau]

Yes, we are basically on the same page.

1. AL accepts that remarriage is a wrong act as are the sexual acts therein. Ab Fernandes says as much in his “defence” of AL. It does not ever suggest it can be good to choose these wrong acts.

It could be read this way, but I would take exception with saying that this is clear - it seems that AL suggests (and the Argentine Directives) that sometimes these acts can be good or even obligatory - “the most generous response,” the abstinence from which is “not feasible” to do. This, I submit, is perhaps the most alarming issue, as it does not square easily with the teaching of Trent on the impossibility of following the Commandments (and the background of that teaching, which insists that sufficient grace is open to all).

I think the “not feasible” is more along the lines of “I am weak and I can’t bring myself to that yet”, rather than impossible. I point again to the Ab Fenandes defence where I quoted him earlier saying there is no denial of what is objectively wrong.

1. AL (confirmed through the Arg Bishops guidelines and Pope’s nod) does propose that communion is possible for some persons, even those not firmly committed to living in continence. It does this on the basis of a judgement of reduced culpability. It does not specify public vs private communion (and I’m not aware that any Guidelines address this explicitly). Personally, I assume private communion is all that is intended. [The Arg Bishops guidelines #9 seems to address this - but I find the wording quite unclear.]

Yes, as it has always been, …

OK, but prior to AL, continence or a firm resolve to continence was the prerequisite for the sacraments. AL is saying that threshold may in some circumstances be lowered.

But once more, such a lack of culpability would, I suggest, be quite difficult to prove, especially for future acts (viz. a habitual intention to continue “more uxorio”). Yet it is certainly hypothetically possible, and this possibility increases the more invincible ignorance comes into play.

I suppose by “prove” you really mean “convince/persuade the priest”? And I’m not sure if “habitual intention” to continue “more uxorio” is going to signal sufficient progress for the sacraments - I suppose for some it may not be a bar. Who knows really how culpability is to be gauged and where is the threshold and how individual circumstances play into that? You’d like to think that those Synod Fathers favouring this process might have had some detailed guidelines ready to hit the press by the time AL was published. Seemingly not though…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have offered limited speculation on you and your background.

Indeed and repeatedly completely at odds with a reality you cannot possibly know .
It doesn’t worry me what you think of my morality, education or pastoral experience.

But what is far more disturbing, for you, is who do you think you are that you could rightly predict these things just from my views. Padre Pio reader of souls?
Your self knowledge and judgement of others is clearly abysmal.

Is your lay hubris really so great that you cannot accept that someone with views that differ from yours cannot be theologically well educated, pastorally experienced and in a completely valid and happy first marriage.

If I was you in this situation and my radar just demonstrated to be so poor I would rethink my self-confidence in my own skills - especially re understanding Pope Francis and AL.

But you obviously not.
Very strange.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Or it could be just be an attempt at mind-reading.

Well if you go through the threads before the Forum is upgraded you will find I predicted the demise of the career of Card Muller well before it happened.

There would appear to be no need to buy into an idea about what AL says unless we can see that it actually says that. It seems very reasonable to await the replacement of speculation by statement.
Rau, that is not how these things work. Yes it will be stated quite explicitly possibly a few decades from now when it wont cause any ripples and when everybody thinks it was always so anyways, like Usury, Slavery etc etc.

I’ll admit that the sort of irregulars and the “pass” rationale that I am speculating on is not the melody theme in AL. AB Fernandez in his recent article doesn’t even mention it.

However it is averted to at moments in AL:
Under “Discernment of Irregular Situations”:
“if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal…this is a case of something which separates from the community”.

“298. 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.”

“There are also the cases of those
who made every effort to save their frst marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid…The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment
of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which** “carefully discerns situations”. **We know that no “easy recipes” exist.”

“300. If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases.”

"What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which “guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. "
"“Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… 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… The principle will be found to fail,
according as we descend further into detail”.

The Maltese make more explicit mention of the status of the 1st marriage:
“If during the discernment process with
these people, a reasonable doubt arises concerning the
validity or consummation of their canonical marriage,
we should propose that these people make a request
for a declaration of the nullity or dissolution of their
marriage bond.”

“10. If, as a result of the process of discernment,…a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot
be precluded from participating in the sacraments of
Reconciliation and the Eucharist”.

This appears to involve a mutual discernment of the status of the first marriage.