Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Peace]

41 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

If this were less important than the potential of the Church's teaching changing on a matter of faith and morals, I might appreciate the humor a little more.

I am sorry. I thought that your request that we summarize the situation for you because you do not have time to read was a joke. I therefore responded in turn with another joke.

But it appears that your request was serious. All the information you asked for is right here in this thread and can be found elsewhere by using Google. If the information is important to you all you need do is look for it and read it.

Here is a good summary that someone else posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/his-holiness-declines-to-answer.html?_r=0

Edited December 2, 2016 by Peace

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I am sorry. I thought that your request that we summarize the situation for you because you do not have time to read was a joke. I therefore responded in turn with another joke.

But it appears that your request was serious. All the information you asked for is right here in this thread and can be found elsewhere by using Google. If the information is important to you all you need do is look for it and read it.

Here is a good summary that someone else posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/his-holiness-declines-to-answer.html?_r=0

Douthat's commentaries on this have, in my opinion, been excellent. @Peace did you see, by any chance, his latest piece? About San Diego? 

[Amppax]

This is the article I'm talking about: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2016/12/01/the-end-of-catholic-marriage/?smid=fb-share&_r=0&referer

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I wasn't following this as it was happening, and I've only heard about it through reading this thread - and my brother casually mentioned something was going on.

I don't have time to read this thread in its entirety, but I'm really interested in it (as I feel all Catholics should be).  Can someone please post the current state of affairs?

As I understand it, Pope Francis released an encyclical (which I haven't read), then Cardinal Burke, along with a few retired cardinals (that we know of) tried to get confirmation of the intended meaning on several issues privately.  That failed, so they released the documentation to the public.  The Pope did not reply directly to them, but made some off-hand remark about them during an interview, and there is a 'leaked' document that supposedly the Holy Father agrees with.

Do I have all this correctly?  Is there more to this story at this time?

I would recommend reading only chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. Not that there is no value in reading the entire thing, but simply that all the controversy is centered on that chapter. Then read the dubia themselves. Should not take any longer than a half hour.

[McM RSCJ]

To Fides Jack

Of course you should read prayerfully all of Amoris Laetitia,  a post synodal apostolic exhortation on Family LIfe, not just one chapter.  The whole text, after all, captures the work of the whole Church after at least a year of preparation and two years of Synod.  (I hear many pastors are already reporting the good news of how helpful they are finding this text in marriage preparation because it presents the ideal, the humanly enchanting and romantic, and the challenging reality of marriage all of a piece, while inviting young persons/couples to take the risk.

No one chapter of the exhortation stands on its own, not even the one with the footnote that a small number of Cardinals (now supported by a few bishops) are demanding the Pope clarify to their satisfaction.  That footnote relates to the notion that some in irregular marriages for decades are nevertheless living their lives in faith and grace and are full members of the Church.  That can, with guidance of pastors, include reception of the Eucharist.  In many many parts of the world and in the hearts and experience of many faithful pastors, this is good news. 

But, alas, you won't find that view on this thread of this website. 

So may I suggest that if you want to you read about and understand this "controversy," you search out a imainstream, responsible Catholic publication with a pastoral purpose.  And may I encourage you to discover the reflections of pastors who know whereof they speak. 

As I assume you know, primary posters on this website favor the critics of Amoris and are hoping more will join their number.  These posters fall back on a particular item in Canon Law, Canon 915.  I do not understand why that Canon seems to count more for them than the Gospel message of forgiveness or Pope Francis' call to the Church.  Pope Francis keeps responding that the sole role of the Church is to communicate the Mercy of God in Jesus Christ.  Posters on this website believe definitive answers to a question of whether or not a person in an irregular union may ever receive Communion are necessary to avoid "confusion" or "scandal."  They also suggest that for any person in an irregular union to receive Communion violates the desire of Christ.

Yet Pope Francis keeps upholding the ideal of marriage on the one hand, while reminding us we are all sinners in need of God's mercy.  He reminds us that the Church is always called to accompany persons where they are in their lives and insists that we, as Church, are always called to discern God's actions amidst flux and uncertainty and in the normal ambiguity of different personal and interpersonal circumstances. 

So far, four Cardinals out of 115 are on the record as demanding "clarity."   And three (? or so?) bishops out of approximately 5100 Catholic Bishops in the world have offered support.

 

You can judge for yourself if think this is more than a tempest in a narrow ideologically constructed teapot.  These Cardinals insist they are acting reluctantly out of the desire to serve the Church. (One can respect their motives while disagreeing with their strategy.)  I just hope that if the Pope and Pastors in the main think it more important to call us all to walk the way of mercy, these Cardinals and Bishops will have the good grace and humility to accept a decision that goes against their interpretation of what God demands. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

[fides' Jack]

Thanks for the reading suggestions.  If I had time I would read the full encyclical, as I said.  I had already read the dubia, as well as the footnote in question.

It sounds like I have the latest in this ... story.

[Peace]

48 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

That can, with guidance of pastors, include reception of the Eucharist.

Nah. It does not say that the divorced and remarried can participate in communion. That is just your own particular interpretation of it.

It would not surprise me if that is what Pope Francis wants to do, and in fact does it at some point in the future. But nobody changes a church practice that is hundreds of years old in a footnote that does not even make direct reference to the divorced and remarried, or to the Eucharist.

But I can see how some folks could interpret it your way. You see what you want to see.

48 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

As I assume you know, primary posters on this website favor the critics of Amoris and are hoping more will join their number. 

Nah. There have been a fairly even number of folks on both sides. It isn't exactly Rorate over here.

48 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

These posters fall back on a particular item in Canon Law, Canon 915.  I do not understand why that Canon seems to count more for them than the Gospel message of forgiveness or Pope Francis' call to the Church.  Pope Francis keeps responding that the sole role of the Church is to communicate the Mercy of God in Jesus Christ.  Posters on this website believe definitive answers to a question of whether or not a person in an irregular union may ever receive Communion are necessary to avoid "confusion" or "scandal."  They also suggest that for any person in an irregular union to receive Communion violates the desire of Christ.

I think you are being uncharitable. I don't have any particular problem with allowing the divorced and remarried to participate in communion if that is the direction that Pope Francis wants to go, but its not fair to suggest that people who believe differently than you do are just a bunch of rule-bound nuts who have no conception of God's mercy.

And God's mercy is not a license to sin. Sometimes mercy comes in the form of corrective action by means of punishment or discipline. Allowing people to just continue to walk in sin is not mercy. It is exactly the opposite of mercy. I am not saying that you necessarily disagree with any of this, but many of the people who would not allow them to communion would do so exactly for the same reason that you would allow them to communion - because they believe that is what is best for them.

You are generally a cool poster to me but here I think you are wrong.

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

This is the article I'm talking about: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2016/12/01/the-end-of-catholic-marriage/?smid=fb-share&_r=0&referer

Not yet. But thanks for the link.

[Guest]

The problem seems to me to be in Canon 915 and "manifest grave sin".  If a person known to be in an irregular marriage [one example only] goes to Holy Communion and receives same, it must then be presumed by all that the person is not in a state of mortal sin (under Pope Francis's terms).  Anyway, for Goodness sake, it is not anyone's business to call, presume, suggest, infer etc. judgement on another and we are forbidden by Jesus to do so. 

I have read some of the article not all.  On a quick skim over the article only, this caught my eye:

Quote

 http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2016/12/01/the-end-of-catholic-marriage/?smid=fb-share&_r=0&referer

"This does not mean unmarried people can legitimately engage in sexual activity. Such activity is illegitimate. People can (in some cases) fall into non mortal but venial sin if full knowledge and deliberate consent are lacking. But, one could argue, is it not necessary for a person to have the intention of never sinning again in order to receive absolution? It certainly is necessary."

Agreed; however if it has been determined that full knowledge and full consent is not present (by self or discussion with a priest), at the very most there can only be venial sin and it is not necessary to confess venial sin and be granted absolution with the firm resolution not to sin again.  Discerning mortal sin or venial sin is a very serious matter indeed and before God.

Amoris Laetitia: My comments are between brackets i.e. [ and ]   "Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin [manifest grave sin]as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community [mortal sin](cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, ..[but not Holy Communion]....read more ..https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf......

326 Homily at Mass Celebrated with the New Cardinals (15

Edited December 3, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[truthfinder]

1 minute ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 Anyway, for Goodness sake, it is not anyone's business to call, presume, suggest, infer etc. judgement on another and we are forbidden by Jesus to do so. 

 

I'm not very precise right now, but I think this is an oversimplification. We can't stop at 'judge not': we need to have the whole context of the verses. Particularly the section about having a beam in our own eye and going after the mote (or sliver of wood) in someone else's. We've got to remove those beams - and point them out - or else we contribute to the spiritual death of another. 

Plus, certain people do have a right to judge based on their position. Pastors have a duty to overlook their parishioners as do parents over children. 

[Guest]

______________

Edit:  If anything has brought scandal and disunity in The Church, the dubai has done so once public.  This is not to state that the intention of the cardinals was not of the highest order and non political.  Prior to the dubai, we might have debated along with theologians the meaning of Amoris Laetitia and rightly so.  But the dubai is beyond that and a far more serious matter, as is the possible intentions of the cardinals if Pope Francis refuses to reply to the dubai.  I am very confident that the four cardinals and Pope Francis have very good motives for the path they are taking, but it is bringing scandal and division to The Church and each of the parties involved would know this.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not like to repeat myself, but it seems that this was not really apprehended before:

 

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]

 

Look in particular at this line: "They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist."
Their state in life, objectively speaking, contradicts the very nature of Christ and His Church. This is the primary reason that these people are not permitted to receive. This is a theological argument first of all, not 'merely' a legal one. One cannot be admitted to a sacrament when their very life contradicts what that sacrament means. Adultery is in every sense opposed to Christ's teachings.

The only way forward for these people is to sincerely approach the sacrament of penance. And one of the key requirements for them is their firm resolution to cease committing their sins of adultery. Otherwise their confession is invalid and sacrilegious.

3 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

______________

Edit:  If anything has brought scandal and disunity in The Church, the dubai has done so once public.  This is not to state that the intention of the cardinals was not of the highest order and non political.  Prior to the dubai, we might have debated along with theologians the meaning of Amoris Laetitia and rightly so.  But the dubai is beyond that and a far more serious matter, as is the possible intentions of the cardinals if Pope Francis refuses to reply to the dubai.  I am very confident that the four cardinals and Pope Francis have very good motives for the path they are taking, but it is bringing scandal and division to The Church and each of the parties involved would know this.

If the cardinals are right in the presenting of their **dubia**, then the scandal comes from Amoris Laetitia, not from their questioning of it.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

I'm not very precise right now, but I think this is an oversimplification. We can't stop at 'judge not': we need to have the whole context of the verses. Particularly the section about having a beam in our own eye and going after the mote (or sliver of wood) in someone else's. We've got to remove those beams - and point them out - or else we contribute to the spiritual death of another. 

Plus, certain people do have a right to judge based on their position. Pastors have a duty to overlook their parishioners as do parents over children. 

Thank you for the response.

I don't have time right now except to comment in full -  and that might mean a much shorter post than usual........happy event.

1 - "contribute to the spiritual death of another"  I agree, and it is spiritual death (mortal sin) or not which  is included in our debate in this thread.

2 - "Pastors have a duty to overlook their parishioners as do parents over children."  They do indeed and must.  However, I think that my meaning was still clear with common sense or that is what I thought and perhaps thought wrongly.

The beam reference is interesting.  The beam might indeed be in the observers eye as well as the one who comments.  I think this thread is all about discerning in whose eye the beam actually is - i.e. who does not see the truth of matters.  It might be in the traditionalists' eye, or it might be in the liberals' eye - and not nouns I like but another matter entirely.

______________________________

General comment: Christ Loves His Church with an embrace of Love and Mercy and it is from the Unity of that Love and Mercy that The Church goes out to all nations.

Edited December 3, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Jack4]

23 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

______________

Edit:  If anything has brought scandal and disunity in The Church, the dubai has done so once public.  This is not to state that the intention of the cardinals was not of the highest order and non political.  Prior to the dubai, we might have debated along with theologians the meaning of Amoris Laetitia and rightly so.  But the dubai is beyond that and a far more serious matter, as is the possible intentions of the cardinals if Pope Francis refuses to reply to the dubai.  I am very confident that the four cardinals and Pope Francis have very good motives for the path they are taking, but it is bringing scandal and division to The Church and each of the parties involved would know this.

Autocorrect, eh?

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

As I understand it, Pope Francis released an encyclical (which I haven't read), then Cardinal Burke, along with a few retired cardinals (that we know of) tried to get confirmation of the intended meaning on several issues privately.  That failed, so they released the documentation to the public.  The Pope did not reply directly to them, but made some off-hand remark about them during an interview, and there is a 'leaked' document that supposedly the Holy Father agrees with.

Do I have all this correctly?  Is there more to this story at this time?

1. Just nitpicking: AL is a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, not an Encyclical. 

2. You missed something important. A contrast:

The Cardinals' letter has phrases like: "This is an act of justice and charity, our duty; we hope no one will judge us unjustly.... "

Furthermore, they were just asking questions. Not presuming the Pope's position. 

Some reactions to them. eg. a Greek Bishop's letter:

"accuse the Holy Father Francis “promoting some form of politics in the Church...gravely offensive words for the Bishop of Rome...you do not believe in the supreme magisterial authority of the Pope...you boast of the title of Cardinals...[you]receive sacrilegiously the Sacrament of the Eucharist..."

and very ironically, the letter concludes: 

With the charity of Christ, I greet you fraternally.

+ Frankiskos Papamanolis, O.F.M Cap

[Guest]

2 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

So far, four Cardinals out of 115 are on the record as demanding "clarity."   And three (? or so?) bishops out of approximately 5100 Catholic Bishops in the world have offered support.

Very interesting indeed, although I don't know the source.  If the situation really is as serious as the four cardinals seem to think, surely there would be more than "three (?or so?)" bishops out of approx. 5100 bishops worldwide coming out to support the dubia.  Also, where are their brother cardinals on the issue?

Seems to be a Mexican standoff between Pope Francis and a quite small minority of cardinals and bishops in the overall at this point it seems anyway.  It is an impasse at this point.  It is an hierarchical issue in The Church and on that level alone can it be resolved whatever pressures may come to bear one way or the other.  Pope Francis wanted "parrhesia" and that is what is occurring and I am sure on a hierarchical level privately, while amongst those outside the hierarchy, especially the laity and those outside The Church altogether, it is very public indeed.  It is a hot issue (grabbing headlines) of secular news and media current affairs.  The four cardinals and the dubia (with possible further action) are also right out in the public domain and with forethought.  Some discussions, however, I am sure are being kept private.

Only our hierarchy can resolve the situation.