Stealing vs. Murder vs. Adultery

[Blue_Horizon]

It corners the problem, which is public reception for those who are not continent in illegitimate civil marriages.

What exactly is the per se problem with public reception versus private reception in this context when committed sexual activity is not usually able to be discerned by fellow communicants and for, that matter, the current official status of a 1st marriage?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

You deny Pope Francis has approved priests may discern and allow worthy cases, in their eyes, admission to the sacraments, if local Guidelines allow, even if a here and now commitment to perfect continence is not possible?

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.

 

[e_c]

What exactly is the per se problem with public reception versus private reception in this context when committed sexual activity is not usually able to be discerned by fellow communicants and for, that matter, the current official status of a 1st marriage?

The law must speak in categories. In some individual cases, it is indeed an unknown phenomenon with an unknown prior union. But the timeless wisdom of the Church is that the revelation - to say nothing of a persistent open knowledge - of such a situation would sufficiently scandalize people as to warrant a categorical exclusion from public reception, in addition to the harm done to a person who seeks reconciliation with their spouse only to find them living a civil marriage openly and publicly receiving Holy Communion. He or she would rightly be furious, if he or she discovered the pastor knew of the situation… Canon 915, then, in this area, seeks to prevent the scandal of these things by weakening the community’s respect of the marital covenant. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SOUL OF THE COMMUNICANT. Again, if you didn’t know this, I invite you to go educate yourself before contributing further.

Blue, I understand full well the idea of a pastor (or some other priest?) speaking with a person/couple after a rejected petition for nullity, or counseling in this way even before approaching a tribunal… I have seen this done in parishes (BAD BAD BAD idea - see the previous paragraph)… It is an utter rejection of the rule of law in favor of a person’s interested (and therefore often warped) and usually uneducated judgment and often selfish desires regarding his/her own case. It leaves out the rights of the other party, who might tell quite a different story from the person doing the “discerning” with Father. Maybe the person in the new union is lying through his/her teeth… Tribunals exist to investigate the credibility of the petitioner’s claims in a way that a pastor could not (let alone oneself). If the tribunal gets it wrong when they had everything they needed to get it right, then someone on the court is going to pay. If someone in the process forged documents and told lies to obtain their desired result, that person will pay. But the judgment of the tribunal is, by its nature, authoritatively prescriptive. There is no other way… As Aristotle says, the level of certainty possible depends on the nature of the science. This is not a perfect science.

Your proposed interpretation of AL reminds me of that scene in A Few Good Men… “I object!” “Overruled.” “Your Honor, I STRENUOUSLY object!” This is not how jurisprudence works. Remember that the bank owner can’t lawfully (or MORALLY) imprison the robber in his basement to make up for the court’s erroneous judgment. And remember too that tribunals sometimes give the wrong judgment against the bond - and then, even though a real bond still obtains, it is no longer prescriptive. Both are free to enter new unions, and they can’t be held morally responsible - unless their own conscience convicts them not to remarry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So, you are saying that:

Just as taking someone else’s physical goods can be feeding the starving (good) not theft (bad);

Marrying another can be…well…marriage (good) not adultery (bad) because one was not already married contrary to outward signs.

So on this theory, no question of culpability of the D&R ought to arise, since no wrong-doing (other than disobedience to Church law - marrying / marrying outside the Church) arises.

We incur this special complication in the marriage context because it is a Sacrament and as such is administered by the Church which judges validity, but the Church takes no role in judging questionable thefts or killings - they are purely civilly addressed.

BUT THEN I read in the Ab Fernandez article: “He said Pope Francis has resisted proposals of progressive moral theologians to drop altogether a distinction between objective sin and subjective guilt, and has maintained that sexual relations by divorced people in a new union always “constitute an objective situation of habitual grave sin,” even if culpability might not exist in a subjective sense in some cases.”

So this seems to undermine the idea that it is material whether or not the original marriage is valid, though of course the person’s beliefs on the matter might factor into culpability. It is simply therefore a matter of judging culpability.

If that’s the case, then the section of AL (which I can’t find just now) that says something to the effect that God may be demanding the continued relationship (I assume including the sexual element?) does not make sense. It would make sense I think if the pair were committed to abstain. I need to find that AL reference.

My small point isnt complicated.
Irregulars are in complicated situations that do not always reduct to a single issue which is why PF says tribunals are basically too blunt an instrument to do a good job often enough.
Clearly culpability for adultery cannot be readily said to be in play if there is a reasonable possibility discerned by the priest they were failed by the tribunal. So if the victim believes there never was a first marriage and the priest holds thats objectively likely what is the pastoral or confessional point in this case of probing the guilty of adultery avenue. You tell me.

Popes and sensitive Cardinals have always been very careful not to tar irregulars as adulterers in major documents i believe for this very reason. They use all sorts of euphemisms to describe the sexual activity in a 2nd marriage but go to great lengths to avoid applying this designation to them, especially the worthy cases.

I believe its because of the very point I am observing.
AB Ferndez apparantly uses the word fornication not adultery jn his original language.
FS only mentions the word adultery once…and only to speak of the real evil which is infidelity to God just as prostitution was associated with idolatry. The perspective is not primarily impure sex as such.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The law must speak in categories. In some individual cases, it is indeed an unknown phenomenon with an unknown prior union. But the timeless wisdom of the Church is that the revelation - to say nothing of a persistent open knowledge - of such a situation would sufficiently scandalize people as to warrant a categorical exclusion from public reception, in addition to the harm done to a person who seeks reconciliation with their spouse only to find them living a civil marriage openly and publicly receiving Holy Communion. He or she would rightly be furious, if he or she discovered the pastor knew of the situation… Canon 915, then, in this area, seeks to prevent the scandal of these things by weakening the community’s respect of the marital covenant. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SOUL OF THE COMMUNICANT. Again, if you didn’t know this, I invite you to go educate yourself before contributing further.

Blue, I understand full well the idea of a pastor (or some other priest?) speaking with a person/couple after a rejected petition for nullity, or counseling in this way even before approaching a tribunal… I have seen this done in parishes (BAD BAD BAD idea - see the previous paragraph)… It is an utter rejection of the rule of law in favor of a person’s interested (and therefore often warped) and usually uneducated judgment and often selfish desires regarding his/her own case. It leaves out the rights of the other party, who might tell quite a different story from the person doing the “discerning” with Father. Maybe the person in the new union is lying through his/her teeth… Tribunals exist to investigate the credibility of the petitioner’s claims in a way that a pastor could not (let alone oneself). If the tribunal gets it wrong when they had everything they needed to get it right, then someone on the court is going to pay. If someone in the process forged documents and told lies to obtain their desired result, that person will pay. But the judgment of the tribunal is, by its nature, authoritatively prescriptive. There is no other way… As Aristotle says, the level of certainty possible depends on the nature of the science. This is not a perfect science.

Where did I say it is about the soul of the communicant?
The issue is objective reality and the level of contuminancy and gravity of alleged public scandal. All objectjvely discernable matters even if prudentially so. Clear fodder re Canon 915.

The tribunal re marital status has just as meany holes in its process as does discernment by a priest for Sacraments and other means of incorporation.
You are pitting the two against each other and clearly in unjustified awe of one and perjorate the other in a per se fashion that does your intelligence no credit.

I dont accept the furious subjective partner objection as per se relevant. Quite apart from his subjectivity if there was any objective merit the priest is still able to adjust his ongoing discernment plan for the couple accordingly. Its per se a tidy plan by PF.

 

[e_c]

Where did I say it is about the soul of the communicant?

It seems to be the implication in these posts that you think c. 915 is about preventing those in mortal sin from approaching Holy Communion.

Noone denies that adultery is gravely disordered in its matter.
That does not mean that choosing technical adultery in situations where the status of the first marriage is reasonably held in contention (which is why AB Fernandez seems to have used the word fornication not adultery) is always mortally sinful…as Pope Francis also clearly states.

E_C you are not going to bring the boat back to safe shores with this tack.
Canon 915 doesnt need to be changed to allow what Pope Francis is doing.
If a prudential judgement can now be made that some privately handled cases of irregularity no longer cause grave public scandel and are no longer considered indicative of contuminy or obstinancy (ie “flaunting their situation”) then what do you think, what do you conclude the Pope is saying re 915? It is very clear what he is saying if one has eyes to see…join the dots even if you dont like how they join…you will not find salvation here if you cannot read the signs of the times just because you dont agree with where they point.

You are over thinking. All that needs to be demonstrated is that there is the same reasonable “moral” (the word you used re theft) doubt over the status of the first marriage to question whether “adultery” is actually in play.

You have completely missed my point.
Culpable or not the disorder is likely not adultery before God.
Sin is before God, not before man. A tribunal might technically say the couple are not free to marry - but they may be wrong. Tribunal judged technical adultery is not necessarily the sin of adultery if they are in fact mistaken.
…
I find this a non sequitor.
What exactly are you on about.
…

Then you do not accept AL or the even clearer understanding provided by the Arg Bishops. That is your problem not mine and its not re4ally worth arguing further.

If you did know that c. 915 is not about whether a person is in mortal sin (which is only indirectly relevant), then you did not seem to make that very clear.

 

[e_c]

But in your latest post, you apparently misunderstand c. 915 in new ways.

The issue is objective reality and the level of contuminancy and gravity of alleged public scandal. All objectjvely discernable matters even if prudentially so. Clear fodder re Canon 915.

The objective reality (whatever that means - of the soul? of the situation? what? - apparently not the objective reality of the judgment of the Church’s legal system, though…) is not an item listed in the canon. I have used another example elsewhere on CAF to demonstrate this idea: if the modern day Therese of Lisieux walks into a parish and a group of people convince her to wear a rainbow sash, under the pretext it is a celebration of the Noahic covenant, she must be denied Holy Communion.

Another problem is that the prospect of grave scandal in the community is not enough to warrant public denial. Maybe the parish is a very scrupulous one and quite ignorant of ecclesiastical laws… They saw a man drinking water before Mass and think erroneously that he has broken the fast and will commit grave sin by presenting himself for Holy Communion. The pastor knows they will gossip and utter rash judgments about the man, and some might go so far as to violate their own conscience on the matter and do similarly as this man. Grave scandal, but he may not be denied Holy Communion.

The tribunal re marital status has just as meany holes in its process as does discernment by a priest for Sacraments and other means of incorporation.
You are pitting the two against each other and clearly in unjustified awe of one and perjorate the other in a per se fashion that does your intelligence no credit.

Even if it were true that the tribunal system is as flawed as some random priest with no perspective on the petitioner’s case or means of doing solid and objective investigation into the matter, it would not matter: it is the law of the Church. It is as strongly uttered as any negative ecclesiastical precept, and it in fact admits of no exceptions (with the possible exception of conflict marriages, which I do not want to discuss on this thread). The tribunal is exactly what the Church has in place to do the work of “discernment” of the validity of marriages. So long as the law says one is not free to marry due to a prior union, one MUST presume he/she is married (conflict marriages notwithstanding)… The Church has this claim on the baptized and chooses to exercise it over Catholics. Canonical form is similarly obligatory (though, in my opinion, should be done away with).

The Holy Father could indeed change this process and delegate it differently. He has not done so. I challenge you to find such a change in legislation in any of the Holy Father’s extant writings… and indeed, it would be a change in legislation. He would have to destroy Dignitas Connubii, and fundamentally alter the Code’s laws on marriage. He has not done this - he has used a few ambiguous footnotes to suggest… something to do with “the sacraments” which “can” be helpful to DR’s. He knows how to change law - he has in fact done it with regard to tribunals (court of second instance). It is not hard… But it would be, in this case, I submit, an error of the most massive proportions. You will not convince me otherwise.

I dont accept the furious subjective partner objection as per se relevant. Quite apart from his subjectivity if there was any objective merit the priest is still able to adjust his ongoing discernment plan for the couple accordingly. Its per se a tidy plan by PF.

Yes, how tidy. I wonder if you would say the same if you were the pastor confronted by a sincerely repentant individual seeking reconciliation with the person the Church says is in law his/her spouse but whom you are publicly allowing to receive Holy Communion while he/she has contracted civil marriage with someone else (outside the Church!) and you know they are having relations, perhaps even despite the judgment of a tribunal in favor of the prior union.

Not tidy… and an injustice of serious proportions. You are suggesting the bank owner imprison the robber, in place of the court, but in a matter far weightier… Family and the sacraments.

There is more to discuss, Blue, but I am going to clamp down on my earlier resolution only to clarify, not to argue. All the basic points are there.

I will add, though, that the accusation of being “sex obsessed” is nonsensical, as it is the liberal interpreters of AL who want it only to be applied to sex… Not to the abortionist who needs to feed his family. Maybe he is distressed because he doesn’t know what else to do for work… Maybe he is not known well enough to cause scandal by receiving Holy Communion… Etc.

 

[e_c]

I will add one more observation, for the “pot” - which will further show the narrow-mindedness of the liberal interpretation of AL.

Suppose this logic was applied the other way? What I mean is… If a priest can discern that a person in a union which is illegitimate according to the law of the Church, and who is living “more uxorio,” had a prior union which was invalid though the law provides the opposite assumption until shown in court, and then act publicly based on that discernment (contra c. 130, mind you), why could he not also discern that a person in a union which is legitimate according to the law of the Church, in which a person is living “more uxorio,” is actually invalid and then act publicly based on that judgment? After all, if “the reality” is what matters, and a priest/pastor is competent to judge this reality in place of the law itself (by the fact of the exchange of vows) or the tribunal, then why could it not work both ways? If it is really being advanced that individual priests are the “competent forum,” over and against the normal rule of law on determining validity, then why does it only work against prior unions rather than current unions?

In fact… many times a priest may have good certainty a couple is not really married, but they have the favor of the law so long as there is no court judgment against the bond… So the union must be assumed - and treated - as real.

 

[e_c]

You deny Pope Francis has approved priests may discern and allow worthy cases, in their eyes, admission to the sacraments, if local Guidelines allow, even if a here and now commitment to perfect continence is not possible?

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.

I also will address this one last time.

He has done no such thing in law.

Why would “local guidelines” have anything to do with allowing for the universal and authentic interpretation of universal law? There are in fact “local guidelines” which contradict your interpretation.

Is it ever impossible to follow the Commandments? (See the anathema from Trent on the topic.)

I will clarify anything I have said. I do not wish to argue in circles any more. I have laid out a thorough case.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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.

I don’t know what you mean by DR…but it’s a moot point anyway. I guess, regarding AL and the dubia, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think we obviously see these documents differently.

AL has been clarified by other bishops and the Pope has given the thumbs up. There really shouldn’t be much ambiguity left.

 

[e_c]

I don’t know what you mean by DR…but it’s a moot point anyway. I guess, regarding AL and the dubia, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think we obviously see these documents differently.

AL has been clarified by other bishops and the Pope has given the thumbs up. There really shouldn’t be much ambiguity left.

“DR” = divorced and remarried (without an annulment).

The Argentine directives are also ambiguous (and also seem to run up against the anathema of Trent on the impossibility of following the Commandments) - see #6, #7, and #9. And a private letter, even from the pope, is not normative law - especially considering the gravity, complexity, and establishment in law the current procedures. The overturning of Dignitas Connubii, Familaris Consortio, etc. (and the relevant canons) would constitute one of the largest canonical reforms in the history of the Church… This is not done by ambiguous footnotes and private letters about ambiguous documents.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
You deny Pope Francis has approved priests may discern and allow worthy cases, in their eyes, admission to the sacraments, if local Guidelines allow, even if a here and now commitment to perfect continence is not possible?

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems to be the implication in these posts that you think c. 915 is about preventing those in mortal sin from approaching Holy Communion.

If you did know that c. 915 is not about whether a person is in mortal sin (which is only indirectly relevant), then you did not seem to make that very clear.

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.

No, you would rather say that of others (eg my irregular marriage is the cause of my allegedly mistaken views for agreeing with Pope Francis even though I clearly advised you my marriage was perfectly sound some while ago - a Freudian slip on your part if ever there was one; e.g. completely misunderstanding my point re AL and Canon 915 thinking I was using 916 points).

What is it with you authoritarian legal beagle types that only your view is correct.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“DR” = divorced and remarried (without an annulment).

The Argentine directives are also ambiguous (and also seem to run up against the anathema of Trent on the impossibility of following the Commandments) - see #6, #7, and #9. And a private letter, even from the pope, is not normative law - especially considering the gravity, complexity, and establishment in law the current procedures. The overturning of Dignitas Connubii, Familaris Consortio, etc. (and the relevant canons) would constitute one of the largest canonical reforms in the history of the Church… This is not done by ambiguous footnotes and private letters about ambiguous documents.

Let me get this right.
You actually do know with moral certainty that PF does wholly approve of the Arg Bishops interpretation despite what you allege are contradictions with whatever.

However, because he didn’t use a traditional formal Magisterial “legal” comms channel to voice his approval you objectively see no actual approval?

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.

 

[Rau]

My small point isnt complicated.
Irregulars are in complicated situations that do not always reduct to a single issue which is why PF says tribunals are basically too blunt an instrument to do a good job often enough. Clearly culpability for adultery cannot be readily said to be in play if there is a reasonable possibility discerned by the priest they were failed by the tribunal. So **if the victim believes there never was a first marriage **and the priest holds thats objectively likely what is the pastoral or confessional point in this case of probing the guilty of adultery avenue. You tell me.

Other than the part I bolded, I think the rest is speculation. I see nothing in AL to suggest the discernment process is or should be influenced by the priest judging the validity of the original marriage. The convictions of the D&R person would likely be a factor in his mind though.

Popes and sensitive Cardinals have always been very careful not to tar irregulars as adulterers in major documents i believe for this very reason. They use all sorts of euphemisms to describe the sexual activity in a 2nd marriage but go to great lengths to avoid applying this designation to them, especially the worthy cases.

Given they are dealing with real people in real and often desperately difficult circumstances might also offer an explanation for sensitive language.

 

[Rau]

…I have used another example elsewhere on CAF to demonstrate this idea: if the modern day Therese of Lisieux walks into a parish and a group of people convince her to wear a rainbow sash, under the pretext it is a celebration of the Noahic covenant, she must be denied Holy Communion.

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

Another problem is that the prospect of grave scandal in the community is not enough to warrant public denial. Maybe the parish is a very scrupulous one and quite ignorant of ecclesiastical laws… They saw a man drinking water before Mass and think erroneously that he has broken the fast and will commit grave sin by presenting himself for Holy Communion. The pastor knows they will gossip and utter rash judgments about the man, and some might go so far as to violate their own conscience on the matter and do similarly as this man. Grave scandal, but he may not be denied Holy Communion.

This seems analogous to why those (perhaps once D&R) who have had their situation sorted out with annulment etc. can receive publically.

 

[Rau]

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.

If that means you might be generally concur that AL says broadly what I posit in Post #35, then I’m pleased. There is a risk of losing track of what is actually been concluded by various posters. To that end, I summarise my understanding this way:

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.
2. AL is not proposing that what appears to be adultery can be in some cases a good act analogous to killing (in self-defence) or appropriating physical goods (to sustain life).
3. AL is not proposing that the discernment process invites the Priest to re-examine the validity of the first marriage and base any subsequent act on his conclusion on that point.
4. AL does propose that culpability of persons in D&R situations is open to judgement by the discerning priest, and the individuals’ concrete behaviour as well as personally held convictions factor into culpability.
5. AL does propose that priests, given an appropriate assessment, may make different decisions for one D&R couple vs another according to “the degree of responsibility” and presence of “mitigating factors”.
6. 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.]

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If the modern day Therese of Lisieux walks into a parish and a group of people convince her to wear a rainbow sash, under the pretext it is a celebration of the Noahic covenant, she must be denied Holy Communion.

What a ridiculous thought experiment. May as well talk about immovable objects meeting irresistible forces for all the usefulness this is in a discussion on whether technical adultery is the sin of adultery Jesus referred to .

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?

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Other than the part I bolded, I think the rest is speculation. I see nothing in AL to suggest the discernment process is or should be influenced by the priest judging the validity of the original marriage. The convictions of the D&R person would likely be a factor in his mind though.

Given they are dealing with real people in real and often desperately difficult circumstances might also offer an explanation for sensitive language.

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.

 

[e_c]

If that means you might be generally concur that AL says broadly what I posit in Post #35, then I’m pleased. There is a risk of losing track of what is actually been concluded by various posters. To that end, I summarise my understanding this way:

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).

1. AL is not proposing that what appears to be adultery can be in some cases a good act analogous to killing (in self-defence) or appropriating physical goods (to sustain life).

See above. It could indeed be read this way, but it seems to be self-contradictory on the point.

1. AL is not proposing that the discernment process invites the Priest to re-examine the validity of the first marriage and base any subsequent act on his conclusion on that point.

Yes. I see no such process outlined. There is no “Kasper Proposal” in AL, or in the Argentine Directives. There is no “robber tribunal” suggested. Such a thing would fatally undermine the jurisprudence of the Church (which, in this case, is enormously significant, as She in Her “supreme authority” has determined a specific diriment impediment to marriage for those who have attempted marriage - conflict marriages notwithstanding … see c. 1075 s. 1, s. 2, c. 1077 s. 2, and c.1085 s.1 and s. 2).

1. AL does propose that culpability of persons in D&R situations is open to judgement by the discerning priest, and the individuals’ concrete behaviour as well as personally held convictions factor into culpability.

Yes, as it has always been.

1. AL does propose that priests, given an appropriate assessment, may make different decisions for one D&R couple vs another according to “the degree of responsibility” and presence of “mitigating factors”.

Yes, as it has always been.

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, and while it is not clear with respect to private vs. public, the hermeneutic of continuity suggests it must be private. 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. If a pastor happens to know that a woman attempted marriage with a con artist who is also “married” with several other people, it must be handled with a certain delicacy… Recall that c. 915 insists on obstinacy as a requirement, and while the other items are met, this one is quite arguably not: she has not been advised on her “husband’s” actual status, so it does not seem it would be able to apply until this is done.

Also… if it has not been assumed… the principle of good faith also applies, as it always has. Due diligence must also be done, however.