The true meaning of Amoris Laetitia?

[JimG]

I had a Canon attorney help me with my case and he told me in his heart he believes that all marriages that fail were invalid from the beginning after working for years doing pro bono work for the Church. I also believe this as well.

Marriage is often a troubled institution today, and it may be that many do not enter it with a clear idea of what it entails, so I can see how this idea would arise. But the Church teaches, as Jesus did, that marriage is permanent. If any marriage that fails can simply be categorized as invalid from the start, that eliminates the need for tribunals or examination of defects in consent. If the marriage failed, it was invalid from the beginning. Problem solved. Dioceses could save a lot of money by getting rid of the tribunal process.

But couples stand before the altar and make vows of permanence and fidelity. The Church and the community take them at their word, and accept that they intend a permanent, faithful, life giving marriage. I don’t see how it could do otherwise.

 

[Rau]

It doesn’t really matter what the Ordinaries intend by their Guidelines does it?
Surely it is what the Pope intended and why he is not upset that not everybody is “cooperating”?

I don’t know whether he is upset or not. He firmly believes the merits of what he wrote. One would think he’d prefer no dissent among the bishops.

It has always been clear to me he is not a fascist micromanager wrt Episcopal Collegiality.
He believes in a considerable degree of decentralisation and local autonomy (compared to previous Papal regimes) and, if mem serves me correctly, has said so in a number of contexts both before and outside of AL.

No doubt true. Though I think - as a general rule - Pope’s prefer their brother bishops to stand with them, rather than oppose.

I would not be surprised if he reverses the DP thing if in 5-20 or whatever years consensus strongly goes against or implementation ends in tears.

Perhaps.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

FRIEND, your position is subjective and illogical

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism. “

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

FRIEND, your position is subjective and illogical

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism. “
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” [Romans 2:13]

You are overthinking things, the point I made in the context of this discussion is much simpler.

The plain reading of “Thou shall not kill” is that soldiers are Killers.
The plain reading of “Thou shall not commit adultery” is that irregulars are Adulterers.

Yet the plain reading of the 5thC does not hold as you so astutely observe.

Therefore why are so many persons here chained to reading the 6thC as intrinsically literal - even when Pope Francis and others are clearly suggesting there can be cases of adultery where irregulars are not the Adulterers that God speaks of, just as there are killers who are not the Killers God speaks of .

Friend.

 

[MaryT777]

Marriage is often a troubled institution today, and it may be that many do not enter it with a clear idea of what it entails, so I can see how this idea would arise. But the Church teaches, as Jesus did, that marriage is permanent. If any marriage that fails can simply be categorized as invalid from the start, that eliminates the need for tribunals or examination of defects in consent. If the marriage failed, it was invalid from the beginning. Problem solved. Dioceses could save a lot of money by getting rid of the tribunal process.

But couples stand before the altar and make vows of permanence and fidelity. The Church and the community take them at their word, and accept that they intend a permanent, faithful, life giving marriage. I don’t see how it could do otherwise.

I agree some sort of process is necessary to evaluate marriages to see why they failed. If at the end of an annulment you have no clue what happened you have no ability to prevent it from happening again. The weird part to me is you give a long testimony or a lengthy written document for your “case” and it’s sent out to people you may never meet who are deciding your fate on paperwork.

I know of one guy that the tribunal interviewed and he said it was "brutal questioning’ in what he felt was a non pastoral manner. I don’t even know of anyone else that has done so.

Paper doesn’t tell the emotional cues of verbal conversation and facial expression, tears of regret for what you did wrong in the marriage, fear in the case of emotional and physical abuse etc.

Getting a letter at the end of a two year process was disappointing to me. Just a letter, nothing personal like a phone call from the Tribunal even. I just think it’s harsh and cold.

Just a thought.

I am happy the Pope has released AL. At least it’s time for a more Pastoral process

Mary.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One would think he’d prefer no dissent among the bishops.

I do not believe so. He is a Jesuit.
Unlike many people he understands the valid place for diversity of implementation or what you call “dissent”. e.g. time is greater than space, the law of gradualness.

I lived with Dominicans for more than 7 years. They are equally academic.
Their spirituality is not one of uniformity, the professors disagree all the time on many points but that does not affect fraternity or having agreement on the main points and tolerantly allowing diversity of private opinion, research and scholarly arguments.
Diversity in uniformity, devolution and decentralisation of authority, varying freedoms of implimentation are all key values for the theologically well educated.

Maybe not so much for the laity or Canon Lawyers.

I believe Pope Francis has aired similar sentiments to what I observed above.

Though I think - as a general rule - Pope’s prefer their brother bishops to stand with them, rather than oppose.

Yes, but not Pope Francis.

 

[Rau]

I don’t -]deny /-]suggest technical failure of the Tribunal is the only basis,… however it is the one that the previous two Popes always said still needed to be worked on. And given that I believe in Magisterial harmony (unlike some here) it would be a natural interpretation of AL that this is also Pope Francis’s primary inspiration.

It would be a more natural interpretation if there were some words in AL to support that view.

However, it is also clear that he does not limit himself to this [failure of Tribunal] pastoral basis.

On the available data AFAIK - it’s not clear it’s even a first order consideration.

He is also very cogniscant of people being caught up in situations beyond their present control in which the best thing given the current objective situation (irretrievable prior marriage, the moral better choice of maintaining the stability of the current irregularity for the sake of the kids rather than break off) is to remain irregular regardless of the state of the first marriage…which is what you seem to be referring to.

I am indeed saying this seems to be the focus of AL, and I say it since this is what the document presents in words.

…If someone really believes their first marriage was valid (but is now irretrievable) far fewer would be desperate for Communion as compared to those who really believe they were never married.

For the well catechized, I think that’s pretty right. Of course, we all have a tendency to rationalise - and I can well imagine many who would not naturally draw much distinction between an ugly middle and end to a marriage and the conditions at the start. Arguably, the discernment process is not expected to produce automatic “free passes” to Communion and a careful reading of AL and of the Argentinian Bishops guidelines are clear that there could be many impediments.

If I was an irregular who felt my first marriage was valid, and I need to stay in my 2nd one for the sake of the kids and my own sanity/living, then I would be prepared to abstain for Communion if I was desperate. If my partner was sincerely unable to agree I would of course not refuse the marital debt (that has to be respected even in a 2nd marriage if one is seriously giving it a go) but would gladly accept not receiving Communion as a consequence. I would know it is enough that the Church in its generosity allows me to stay in this active cohabitation without formal sin even though I know my first irretrievable marriage was valid.

Under your scenario here, the following 2 questions comes to mind:

1. Would you be entitled to seek the marital debt? I presume you agree no.
2. If now you feel your first marriage was not valid, could you then seek the marital debt?
   And what would you expect to be the Priest’s view about offering you the Eucharist in each case?

 

[Rau]

That’s a strange thing to say.
Neither phrase is self evident.
Further, if you were correct then you must reject JPII’s innovation which finally broke with the “tradition” that you assert - that is, remarried couples who do not have sex may receive Communion. If what you say was intrinsically true of the very act of marriage (or cohabitation) then there could be no grounds for Communion at all. But there are.

I don’t think that follows at all. The choice to marry is I think as I described (“the pinnacle of unfaithfulness, or the act of one who believed they owe/owed no duty of faithfulness.”). Remaining in that union is a different decision, and a decision to live as “brother and sister” is a huge large stepping back.

The issue of course is that “unfaithfulness” is ultimately about the soul not the body.
THAT is the true pinnacle of unfaithfulness, not technical carnal adultery necesssarily.
That is why Pope Francis talks about those in a 2nd marriage still being able to grow in grace. If that is happening, and the first marriage is irretrievable anyways, then I disagree with you that the simple fact of carnal adultery (or a 2nd marriage) is the pinnacle of unfaithfulness. It is obviously a disordered situation, but it is not the pinnacle of unfaithfulness per se. Nor is it what many would say Jesus was actually spotlighting in his teachings re divorce and adultery.

I am trying to imagine actions of unfaithfulness that married person could take, and then ranking them by degrees. Certainly marrying another seems to be fairly high on the list. Various forms of polygamy might be worse - I agree.

You have misunderstood the phrase “moral offence”.
Grave objective disorder is not incompatible with that absence of “moral offence”.
Moral offence means “personal sin” at a face reading. Clearly an innocent passive party in a divorce (even if they allowed it) has not sinned either venially or mortally.
However it is objectively serious matter regardless - it wounds/contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage which involves becoming one body and staying together for life. That commitment has clearly ruptured.

My point was that divorce need not be sinful, a position I see you support.

You mean a more conservative view would think the yielding one is in fact jumping in head first?

No. Perhaps re-read my para together with the questions I raised at the end of my last post.

 

[Rau]

You are overthinking things, the point I made in the context of this discussion is much simpler.

The plain reading of “Thou shall not kill” is that soldiers are Killers.
The plain reading of “Thou shall not commit adultery” is that irregulars are Adulterers.

Yet the plain reading of the 5thC does not hold as you so astutely observe.

Therefore why are so many persons here chained to reading the 6thC as intrinsically literal…

I agree that meaning is often deeper than a superficial reading of words expresses.

But to be fair blue, it is also true that “killing” (the word) lacks a great deal of moral specificity (or moral content), whereas many other words, among them adultery, calumny etc. present far less wiggle room.

 

[Rau]

…Therefore why are so many persons here chained to reading the 6thC as intrinsically literal - even when Pope Francis and others are clearly suggesting there can be cases of adultery where irregulars are not the Adulterers that God speaks of, just as there are killers who are not the Killers God speaks of

Not sure what statements of Pope Francis to which you refer here. Certainly he does not say there are cases of adultery that are good.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Marriage is often a troubled institution today, and it may be that many do not enter it with a clear idea of what it entails, so I can see how this idea would arise. But the Church teaches, as Jesus did, that marriage is permanent. If any marriage that fails can simply be categorized as invalid from the start, that eliminates the need for tribunals or examination of defects in consent. If the marriage failed, it was invalid from the beginning. Problem solved. Dioceses could save a lot of money by getting rid of the tribunal process.

But couples stand before the altar and make vows of permanence and fidelity. The Church and the community take them at their word, and accept that they intend a permanent, faithful, life giving marriage. I don’t see how it could do otherwise.

To say “marriage is often a troubled institution today” is a gross understatement. I think the state of marriage today is better described as “a giant **** sandwich, and we’re all going to have to take a bite”.

 

[Rau]

…
Unlike many people he understands the valid place for diversity of implementation or what you call “dissent”.

I think you are using “diversity of implementation” as somewhat of a euphemism Blue. By dissent, I mean a Bishop rejects the reasoning of AL paras 300+ (and presumably decides JP II’s blanket, objective rule should remain).

Diversity of implementation is a given, noting that implementing AL entails much subjective judgement (upon which Bishops may offer guidelines, and priests will no doubt vary too).

Diversity of implementation is reasonable and to be expected for AL, though dissent is somewhat unfortunate.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would be a more natural interpretation if there were some words in AL to support that view.

Give me some time to reread AL!
I would be surprised if there is nothing in their to support my view which I have held since readings it three times when it first came out!

Under your scenario here, the following 2 questions comes to mind:

1. Would you be entitled to seek the marital debt? I presume you agree no.
2. If now you feel your first marriage was not valid, could you then seek the marital debt?
   And what would you expect to be the Priest’s view about offering you the Eucharist in each case?

1. Of course not if I was convinced my first marriage was valid. I may of course fail as perfect chastity for the experienced is difficult even when single let alone when cohabiting with a woman. However I do notice that fulfilling emotional relationships with the opposite sex and family life can in time bring concupiscence under control - something that is difficult for single persons in this day and age.
2. I do not believe deserving cases are on and off over time re the status of their first marriage. Usually they are aware that something was not right from the start. The realisation it is not valid can be so painful that it is denied for years - but when realisation breaks there is understandably few who reverse the realisation so hard in the making.

Of course a person, after making this realisation, is free to decide whether to stick it out or not as if it were valid and so in effect personally revalidate on new terms what they did not originally sign up for.

But as to your question. If I thought my first marriage was never valid then of course I may seek the marital debt if I had made reasonable effort to have the Tribunal find what I believe to be objective, that would be perfectly natural.

But if the Church laws penalise me (ie a Tribunal fails my personal conviction for whatever reason) then its truth and consequences isn’t it. How badly do I want Jesus in Communion? How badly do I need to initiate sex with my partner. If I was a woman it likely wouldn’t be an issue given that men often move first. But to be honest I prefer Communion in this situation myself than initiating the debt my side so it really is no great issue for me . It may be for others, in which case you will have to ask them how they see balancing up Communion versus being able to initiate the debt. Cannot imagine its a big issue to be honest for sincere persons.

Anyways, for me to know that the Church accepts my partner and my cohabitation and that I am likely in a state of grace even if I am still asked not to present for Communion if sexually active is more than good enough for me. Gods grace avails without Communion (which I believe is somewhat fetishized these days to be honest).

And should the DP priest encourage me to receive Communion even while sexually active (unlikely as it would not be an issue for me) I would be most grateful though not something I would ever expect. Nor would I feel in anyway shameful or sacrilegious to receive if it was granted me … because I would believe the first marriage was never valid to start with.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you are using “diversity of implementation” as somewhat of a euphemism Blue. By dissent, I mean a Bishop rejects the reasoning of AL paras 300+ (and presumably decides JP II’s blanket, objective rule should remain).

Diversity of implementation is a given, noting that implementing AL entails much subjective judgement (upon which Bishops may offer guidelines, and priests will no doubt vary too).

Diversity of implementation is reasonable and to be expected for AL, though dissent is somewhat unfortunate.

Why would loyal dissenting bishops make a public song and dance of their personal disagreement when all they have to do is employ the implementation freedom of conscience that Pope Francis has allowed them on this issue?

All they have to do is issue business as usual Guidelines which is by and large what is discretely happening with most “confused” bishops in the US and no doubt Poland.

The Church is ultimately about what is done not what is personally believed.

Had the Pope micromanaged and rigidly enforced his implementation with more strict Canon Law in this difficult period of change then significant bishops would have a crisis of conscience wouldn’t they? They would have to choose between obeying or resigning.

In other words the Pope seems to be employing, with local Ordinaries and AL, the same pastoral tolerance that the Confessor’s Vademecum does re the faithful and contraception.

All very wise.
The Jesuit “time is greater than space” and the law of gradualness in operation re bishops and clergy.

There has always been major dissent even in the highest levels of the history of the Church. Unfortunately the worm has turned with this Pope and roles are now reversed.
At least he is a little more more tolerant of dissent than previous Teams Magisterium.

 

[Rau]

Give me some time to reread AL!
I would be surprised if there is nothing in their to support my view which I have held since readings it three times when it first came out!

From memory, there are words that one could infer go to tribunal outcomes/failure, but nothing to match the specific language addressing the circumstances of the person in the new union, culpability, etc.

Of course not if I was convinced my first marriage was valid.

Right - so it’s a given that regardless of other factors, a person who accepts their first marriage was valid, ought not to seek marital debt in a re-marriage, and the Priest should identify sexual relations as an impediment to communion. [All a bit hypothetical I think as most unlikely anyone pursuing this course will also hold their first marriage to be valid.]

If I thought my first marriage was **never valid **then of course I may seek the marital debt if I had made reasonable effort to have the Tribunal find what I believe to be objective, that would be perfectly natural.

If you are free to seek the marital debt, does it follow that you were free (morally speaking) to re-marry in the first place?

I am wondering what a Priest will conclude in this situation (no annulment, believe first marriage not valid, choosing to have sex). I would read AL to certainly suggest this can be tolerable, no bar to communion due to reduced culpability etc. Anyway, this is interesting. Would be interested to see if others have thoughts on this second scenario.

 

[Rau]

Why would loyal dissenting bishops make a public song and dance of their personal disagreement…

Well, indeed. But that’s a different question.

All they have to do is issue business as usual Guidelines which is by and large what is discretely happening with most “confused” bishops in the US and no doubt Poland.

Right - which we might accurately term a “quiet dissent”, but it is still dissent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, indeed. But that’s a different question.

Right - which we might accurately term a “quiet dissent”, but it is still dissent.

And its a “good” and respectful and healthy “dissent”.

Unlike that of certain confused 4-1=3 persons .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Right - so it’s a given that regardless of other factors, a person who accepts their first marriage was valid, ought not to seek marital debt in a re-marriage, and the Priest should identify sexual relations as an impediment to communion. [All a bit hypothetical I think as most unlikely anyone pursuing this course will also hold their first marriage to be valid.]

Well, that’s what I believe to be the objective situation.
However other people will be different from me of course, and some sincerely so.
So we come back to the wise advice in the Confessor’s Vademecum re ignorance of the objective evil of contraception and toleration and the law of gradualness in helping the ignorant grow to enlightenment. That is what the DP process is ideally meant to assist with. Although this is a bit different because on this point its likely a matter of getting people to see that perhaps they should not be going to Communion or at least not seeking the marital debt or at least confessing each time they fail.

If you are free to seek the marital debt, does it follow that you were free (morally speaking) to re-marry in the first place?

That’s not a fair question. Often we get ourselves into pickles, become enlightened, and then becoming enlightened realise it would be immoral to easily jump back out of those situations (for the sake of the kids). And my head hurts.

I am wondering what a Priest will conclude in this situation (no annulment, believe first marriage not valid, choosing to have sex). I would read AL to certainly suggest this can be tolerable, no bar to communion due to reduced culpability etc. .

Like most things how badly do they want Communion and what are their reasons for this and what are their reasons for not giving up sex (or at least not initiating from their side). Its also about how well they have discharged their ongoing moral responsibilities to the first marriage/kids.

In the end its all about what their current actions/lives say about their interior attitude to God and neighbour in the face of past mistakes that cannot be undone.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Our Lady of Fatima warned Satan’s final battle would be over the family and marriage. And Our Lady of Revelation says that people will stop believing in the Real Presence. AL seems to fit the bill for both of these.

Mary, Queen of Peace; pray for us.

 

[JimG]

I agree some sort of process is necessary to evaluate marriages to see why they failed. If at the end of an annulment you have no clue what happened you have no ability to prevent it from happening again. The weird part to me is you give a long testimony or a lengthy written document for your “case” and it’s sent out to people you may never meet who are deciding your fate on paperwork.

I know of one guy that the tribunal interviewed and he said it was "brutal questioning’ in what he felt was a non pastoral manner. I don’t even know of anyone else that has done so.

Paper doesn’t tell the emotional cues of verbal conversation and facial expression, tears of regret for what you did wrong in the marriage, fear in the case of emotional and physical abuse etc.

Getting a letter at the end of a two year process was disappointing to me. Just a letter, nothing personal like a phone call from the Tribunal even. I just think it’s harsh and cold.

Just a thought.

I am happy the Pope has released AL. At least it’s time for a more Pastoral process

Mary.

I have no personal experience with tribunals, so I accept your own and others personal experience as valid. Yet I have read of some who thought it was a liberating experience. It sounds as though the tribunal needs to become more pastoral. I wonder what tribunal members think of this.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Our Lady of Fatima warned Satan’s final battle would be over the family and marriage.

Indeed, but nobody said that has only one meaning.
She may well be referring to the disunity of those who oppose Christ’s rock on this matter to the point of Schism.