Stealing vs. Murder vs. Adultery

[Blue_Horizon]

OK, though man has no means to perfectly judge the truth about validity. Do your remarks imply AL proposes a move to a 2-tier human judgement process: where the authorities of each are:

Tier 1 (Tribunal) : Judges (with finality) whether a person may marry again in the Catholic Church; Sets a high bar standard of proof.

Tier 2 (Discernment Process): Judges morality of the sexual acts of the D&R, and accordingly:

• whether they are good (no need to avoid) ie. no adultery;
• whether they are not good, and the severity / culpability;
• whether communion is possible.

Only operates where the Bishop allows it. If the Bishop does not allow it, Tier 1 decisions have wider impact. Relies on personal assessment by the Priest;

A little too technical for me!
But irt does seem that a the DP does partly involve a reasoable prudential view on the status of the first mrriage even if not annulled by a tribunal. And not simply for decisions re Communion but also about discerning moral obligations re both marriages.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, in my Day, there have been 7 Popes. Not sure about e_c.

You remember J23rd. You are old father Rau.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So there is indeed a personal situation you have which is relevant to this, if I understand what you are saying…

I encourage you to seek the appropriate canonical counsel. It could very likely be resolved.

I will not be engaging you further on this thread.

Peace to you, Blue…
-e_c

I cant believe your thinking is so binary and unimaginative to conclude I was talking about myself instead of “everyman” above.
What a hoot.

I have already advised recently we have a perfectly valid and happy single marriage thanks. U
Nonsacramental though it is.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Also, regarding the “most generous response,” I will ask again why a similar case could not be made for an abortionist who has no other means of employment and needs to feed his family? Is it conceivable God wants him to continue in such a state? Is the 5th Commandment impossible for him, simply because it is difficult to follow and tempting not to follow? Certainly not.

By the way, lest we further detach ourselves from the law the Church in Her authority has laid down and run headlong into the labyrinth to kill the “Amoris Minotaur” without that string, here are some other relevant canons which proscribe second marriages without death or declared nullity:

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly.

There is much more to talk about - with the Fernandez Document, with Amoris, and with even more subtle issues regarding culpability for the sin of adultery, and also another special kind of relevant case… I have said numerous times I would be interested in a thread on petitioners without witnesses (of special interest as well are the so-called “conflict marriages” these kinds of cases regard). But all the fundamental points must be clear before diving into the more complex issues. I will not start another thread to address these things (someone else will have to, if they are interested), and I will only continue to contribute to this thread to clarify anything I have already said.

Objectively in breach of those Canons still does not make the remarriage any more clearly adultery than if the Canons were not in existence.
For some deserving cases the status of the first marriage can still be reasonably and competently discerned as likely non existent by a priest…and therefore the putative adultery similarly discerned as purely technical and just as likely not really existent because there likely was no 1st marriage despite the official status. You may believe that sort of hollowed out adultery is personally morally as bad as the sort of viscious knowing active adultery Jesus condemned but many Catholics and Cardinals do not…including your Pope.

Just as there are different types of killings, some wrong, some not killings at all, likewise with adultery…its just that we dont yet have an english word for those analogous to “not killings at all”. (Warning hyperbole at work, exaggeration for the sake of effect).

 

[Rau]

You remember J23rd. You are old father Rau.

Don’t remember him, but worth noting that’s 7 Popes in one lifetime.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A Bishop discussing an interpretation of “discernment” as arising in AL.
youtube.com/watch?v=zSnAP5BUQ9Q&app=desktop

He is clear that discernment is being understood - at least by some - to include “discerning if the sex in a D&R situation is OK”.

I don’t think it is clear that AL itself advocates that one should discern whether or not it is “OK” to continue having sex in a D&R situation - though clearly many are concerned that this could be inferred. Clearly AL does not rule it out either, and the Pope has not subsequently ruled it out.

The Argentinian Bishops say in their guidelines that it may arise that for a particular couple, continence/or commitment to continence is “not feasible”. It doesn’t say or draw a conclusion that in this case, the sex is “good”. It just appeals to a question of reduced culpability, with the result that communion might be possible, with the benefit that the person continues “maturing and growing with the aid of grace”. I have to believe this means growth toward the ideal.

Of course it does, how could anyone read all of AL and come to any other conlusion .
PF goes on about the law of gradualness and time versus space so much even I get sick of it.

 

[Rau]

Of course it does, how could anyone read all of AL and come to any other conlusion .
PF goes on about the law of gradualness and time versus space so much even I get sick of it.

In which case you should be pretty much on-board with Post #35.

 

[Rau]

Pope Francis has published the correct interpretation of AL on the Vatican website:

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html

“The document is very good and fully expresses the meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII. There are no other interpretations.”

The Pope has spoken. The matter is settled.

Which matter is that?
Was it the same matter that was settled upon the issuing of Familiaris Consortio?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

See all the references in the first dubium:

The documents alluded to provide for the appropriate context with respect to the canon.

The parts of AL that the dubia questions may match up with the words “alluded to”. The dubia, on the other hand is clearer and more precise, and does not fit your description of “alluded to”. The dubia is not written in the same style as AL, and there are no documents that are alluded to in the dubia…the documents and paragraphs in question are explicitly cited, canon 915 is not one of them.

I think you are wrong to apply that methodology to the dubia, but it does seem to fit with AL, and I think Cardinal Burke might agree. I’m just curious as to why you didn’t apply an “alluded to” methodology to AL in regards to canon 915.

 

[e_c]

The parts of AL that the dubia questions may match up with the words “alluded to”. The dubia, on the other hand is clearer and more precise, and does not fit your description of “alluded to”. The dubia is not written in the same style as AL, and there are no documents that are alluded to in the dubia…the documents and paragraphs in question are explicitly cited, canon 915 is not one of them.

I think you are wrong to apply that methodology to the dubia, but it does seem to fit with AL, and I think Cardinal Burke might agree. I’m just curious as to why you didn’t apply an “alluded to” methodology to AL in regards to canon 915.

Dubium #1 cites four recent papal documents. One is AL, one is FC, one is RP, one is SC. If you go through these documents, the difficulty lessens (especially when one understands them with their proper relation to Dignitas Connubii) and as a continuance of past practice - DR has long been the “go to” example of c. 915 and its predecessor canons, so the “burden” is on the one who would change the canon’s application/interpretation to be as explicit as possible in so doing - reversing the teaching of these other documents would suffice, definitely. The whole context of these documents makes clear that we are indeed talking about c. 915. With AL, it is not clear… perhaps “the help of the sacraments” is supposed to be limited to private reception. Perhaps “can” assumes the couple is living in continence. Perhaps the whole phrase means that pastors must carefully tread on cases of invincible ignorance. Who knows? Well, if this dubium were answered, we would know. It corners the problem, which is public reception for those who are not continent in illegitimate civil marriages.

The point is to be written differently than AL, which leaves everyone to their own interpretations, as we are seeing.

AL cites FC, but it omits a critical part, doesn’t it…The part of FC that was actually clear on this point.

 

[e_c]

I cant believe your thinking is so binary and unimaginative to conclude I was talking about myself instead of “everyman” above.
What a hoot.

I have already advised recently we have a perfectly valid and happy single marriage thanks. U
Nonsacramental though it is.

Good to hear it - you did indeed use ambiguous language. I will take on your other comment, given this.

Objectively in breach of those Canons still does not make the remarriage any more clearly adultery than if the Canons were not in existence.
For some deserving cases the status of the first marriage can still be reasonably and competently discerned as likely non existent by a priest…and therefore the putative adultery similarly discerned as purely technical and just as likely not really existent because there likely was no 1st marriage despite the official status.

You have not shown this, merely asserted it. I have provided many reasons why this is not so (undermining the law, interested and usually uninformed judgment, violating the rights of the other party, etc.). The burden of proof lies entirely with you and those who would assert such a thing. (And I think, with Rau, that it is even less clear that the Holy Father agrees with this analysis, and that he in fact seems to disagree.) I can’t be bothered to go back through the entire line of reasoning. It is tiresome. In short, it destroys the entire purpose of the judicial mechanism to begin with.

Seeing as you don’t even seem to know what c. 915 actually means on a basic level, as evidenced by a previous comment (post #20, “I find this a non sequitor. What exactly are you on about,”) I don’t see much point trying to discuss the law with you further.

 

[Rau]

…With AL, it is not clear… perhaps “the help of the sacraments” is supposed to be limited to private reception. Perhaps “can” assumes the couple is living in continence. Perhaps the whole phrase means that pastors must carefully tread on cases of invincible ignorance. Who knows? Well, if this dubium were answered, we would know. It corners the problem, which is public reception for those who are not continent in illegitimate civil marriages.

I concluded reception must be private given nothing in AL challenges or makes the scandal concern go away. Per post #35, I concluded the couple could be not yet living in continence. But yes, you are right, these things are hardly explicit and certainly do not meet up with FC in any obvious way.

 

[o_mlly]

Moses, patron saint of Jewish divorce lawyers, pray for us.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Good to hear it - you did indeed use ambiguous language. I will take on your other comment, given this.

You have not shown this, merely asserted it. I have provided many reasons why this is not so (undermining the law, interested and usually uninformed judgment, violating the rights of the other party, etc.). The burden of proof lies entirely with you and those who would assert such a thing. (And I think, with Rau, that it is even less clear that the Holy Father agrees with this analysis, and that he in fact seems to disagree.) I can’t be bothered to go back through the entire line of reasoning. It is tiresome. In short, it destroys the entire purpose of the judicial mechanism to begin with.

Seeing as you don’t even seem to know what c. 915 actually means on a basic level, as evidenced by a previous comment (post #20, “I find this a non sequitor. What exactly are you on about,”) I don’t see much point trying to discuss the law with you further.

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:

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19132

 

[e_c]

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 tricks:

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19132

More confusion. More assertions. More rhetoric.

For example, who are these “papally authorized priests”? Isn’t that exactly what a tribunal is (though it may include non clergy)? And where did I say reality was determined by men’s judgements? In fact, I explicitly denied this.

Please stop the name calling. For the hundredth time, it is inappropriate and unhelpful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I concluded reception must be private given nothing in AL challenges or makes the scandal concern go away. Per post #35, I concluded the couple could be not yet living in continence. But yes, you are right, these things are hardly explicit and certainly do not meet up with FC in any obvious way.

Yes I am, just too much to process below and so little time to devote.
I liked your AL has an after the event perspective.
Thats an excellent observation and I believe what points to AL, and PFs, pragmatic compassion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

More confusion. More assertions. More rhetoric.

For example, who are these “papally authorized priests”?

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.

 

[e_c]

Yes I am, just too much to process below and so little time to devote.
I liked your AL has an after the event perspective.
Thats an excellent observation and I believe what points to AL, and PFs, pragmatic compassion.

I believe you missed the purpose of Rau’s post.

 

[e_c]

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.

Yes, I have, it is called a tribunal.

Yes, it is indeed unclear.

Seeing as you are none of those, I will keep doing what I’m doing.

 

[e_c]

I concluded reception must be private given nothing in AL challenges or makes the scandal concern go away. Per post #35, I concluded the couple could be not yet living in continence. But yes, you are right, these things are hardly explicit and certainly do not meet up with FC in any obvious way.

I would agree with this… The burden of proof, however, for such a person to show their actions (past and future) don’t constitute mortal sin beyond a reasonable doubt, would be quite heavy.