Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Nihil Obstat]

It is rather facile to suggest that only these four cardinals and a handful of bishops are the ones with concerns. I would suggest that significantly more intellectual honesty is required here.

[Guest]

I agree.  Source(s) of statistics with dates needed.  I was surprised at the statistics quoted and wondered how accurate they actually were - but took info in good faith as accurate anyway.  I don't think there is much radical disagreement being expressed quite publicly on a hierarchical level - if that is accurate, then I do wonder why.

______________

Edit: Seems to me where obedience is concerned, we are called to be obedient to The Holy Father unless and until he is proven in a quite formally declared manner to be in error.  That is where obedience might be concerned just now.  Discerning the truth of matters is another subject - and at this point where debating is concerned, it is seeking understanding and discerning truth -  rather than disobedience I would think.

[Peace]

46 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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.

We heard you the first time, friend. The question is whether or not those particular statements are correct (or binding on other popes).

Plenty of the more "traditional" leaning folks have no problem with disagreeing with paragraph 2267 of the catechism and the corresponding section of Evangelium Vitae concerning the death penalty (same pope). Why would Pope Francis then be prohibited from disagreeing with St. John Paul II (if he does)? The only difference I can really see is that their private interpretation is that St. Pope John Paul II is wrong in the first instance, but correct in the second instance. It does rather seem to me that in effect some people are just deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. If the pope agrees with their particular view the teaching is apostolic tradition. If the pope disagrees with their view it is a novelty. But in either case they, and not the pope and the other living bishops, get to decide what is apostolic and what is a novelty. I have trouble seeing how this sort of denial of living authority can result in anything other than people going the route of Martin Luther or the SSPX. 

As for the merits of the assertion that their state in life objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and his church, I do not see why that must necessarily hold.

First of all, does he even explain why that is the case? Maybe I missed it. It seems like more of a self-proving statement than something that must follow from logic or tradition, but let me go back and read the whole thing in more depth.

This is admittedly speculative, but in strict terms I do not believe that the express permission of the Church is necessary for there to be a vaild marriage. From what I understand marriage is a sacrament that the couple confers on themselves, with proper intention and consent. The Church recognizes the marriage but does not by Her action actually confer the sacrament or grace on the couple. They confer it on themselves. This is why up until Trent, for the most part clergy were not present at weddings (nor was express permission from the Church required, from what I understand but don't quote me). The Church imposed these requirements relatively late.

I think that the fact of the couple and not the Church conferring the sacrament is also pretty clear from the fact that when two baptized Lutherans get married in the Lutheran Church, they have a vaild sacramental marriage. They don't get "remarried" when they enter the Catholic Church (just like I did not get rebaptized when I converted).

So I don't see why in many cases the second marriage could not in fact be sacramental. With or without a declaration of nullity it seems that in many cases that the spouses had improper intention in the case of the first "marriage" rendering it invalid, and proper intention and consent in the case of the "second marriage" (the true first marriage). 

I suppose that is why we have the annulment procedure, to get to the bottom of the situation. I would think that the Church would want to gave the annulment in order to reduce the possibility that the first marriage was valid and that they are receiving in a state of mortal sin by way of the second "marriage".

But I do not particularly see why someone's ability to receive or not receive communion should depend on an admittedly fallible process.They pass out annulments like candy in the US. Born in the Philippines? Good luck with it. So what if a woman is in an abusive relationship, gets "married" without the proper intention, gets divorced, asks for an annulment, and the annulment panel gets it wrong and says that she is validly married? She has to live the rest of her life single or be barred from communion because the Church got her annulment proceeding wrong? 

That's just a practical aspect of it, but let me give you a personal example why I have felt that some of the prior encylicals (or apostolic exhortations or whatever before the all knowing @Jack4 chimes in to correct me) like Veritatas Splendor might take an overly rigid view of moral theology. My older sister (non-Catholic) is divorced and remarried. Her first husband was very abusive. I will spare you the details, but at this very moment her ex-husband is serving a long jail sentence for raping another woman. That should give you a sense. Not exactly a model of the love between Christ and the Church. 

The man she remarried after her divorce is great. They along with my nephew have a great loving relationship. They are practically the Huxtables. So what if my sister happened to be Catholic and had gotten remarried without going through an annulment, or got remarried after her annulment was denied? I am really supposed to go up to them every day and be like "Live as brother and sister or I rebuke you! You are living in an objective state of grave sin that is contrary to the union of love between Christ and his Church!"? I am supposed to report to the priest at every Church she goes to Mass at that she has not followed the rules and should be denied communion? 

I mean, that's the rule and all. I get it. But they sure seem to be exhibiting Christ's love to me by the way that they treat each other. Is it really so easy to say that their state in life contradict's Christ's love? Maybe it is for some folks but something about that conclusion doesn't seem like it would be right to me. I am cool with leaving those difficult questions up to the pope and the other bishops and following their lead. Obviously they are a lot more competent to handle the matter than you or me.

I honestly don't have any answers here but as Pope Francis seems to say, perhaps there is not an easy black and white answer for everything. I had wondered whether Veritatas Splendor's attempt to make moral theology so "scientific", "logical" or "black and white" overstepped a bit or did  not leave sufficient room for a more "merciful" or flexible approach to the situations that people face in real life. For the most part I thought that this problem is what Pope Francis was attempting to start to deal with in Amoris. 

Again - this is not me trying to definitely prove that Familiaris is wrong. But just based on my own thought on it, I see enough that if Pope Francis were to allow them to participate in communion under certain circumstances, I don't think you or I could cleary say that he is contradicting the apostolic teaching.

46 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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.

That's the only way now. But it obviously won't be the only way if Pope Francis provides them another avenue.

That's just my two cents on it. I ain't saying I am right but I think there is room for discussion on it.

Goodnight.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hoo boy. Way too much to respond to there. Yikes.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Hoo boy. Way too much to respond to there. Yikes.

Victory is mine.

[Nihil Obstat]

O grave, where is thy victory?

[Jack4]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

That's just a practical aspect of it, but let me give you a personal example why I have felt that some of the prior encylicals (or apostolic exhortations or whatever before the all knowing @Jack4 chimes in to correct me) like Veritatas Splendor might take an overly rigid view of moral theology.

@Peace, I would never say I am "all knowing". Please read the "About me" in my profile. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I have come down with an incredibly powerful flu/chest cold lately, so I may or may not be able to participate in this thread for the next few days.

[Jack4]

36 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have come down with an incredibly powerful flu/chest cold lately, so I may or may not be able to participate in this thread for the next few days.

[Maggyie]

On 12/2/2016 at 11:09 PM, Peace said:

We heard you the first time, friend. The question is whether or not those particular statements are correct (or binding on other popes).

Plenty of the more "traditional" leaning folks have no problem with disagreeing with paragraph 2267 of the catechism and the corresponding section of Evangelium Vitae concerning the death penalty (same pope). Why would Pope Francis then be prohibited from disagreeing with St. John Paul II (if he does)? The only difference I can really see is that their private interpretation is that St. Pope John Paul II is wrong in the first instance, but correct in the second instance. It does rather seem to me that in effect some people are just deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. If the pope agrees with their particular view the teaching is apostolic tradition. If the pope disagrees with their view it is a novelty. But in either case they, and not the pope and the other living bishops, get to decide what is apostolic and what is a novelty. I have trouble seeing how this sort of denial of living authority can result in anything other than people going the route of Martin Luther or the SSPX. 

As for the merits of the assertion that their state in life objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and his church, I do not see why that must necessarily hold.

First of all, does he even explain why that is the case? Maybe I missed it. It seems like more of a self-proving statement than something that must follow from logic or tradition, but let me go back and read the whole thing in more depth.

This is admittedly speculative, but in strict terms I do not believe that the express permission of the Church is necessary for there to be a vaild marriage. From what I understand marriage is a sacrament that the couple confers on themselves, with proper intention and consent. The Church recognizes the marriage but does not by Her action actually confer the sacrament or grace on the couple. They confer it on themselves. This is why up until Trent, for the most part clergy were not present at weddings (nor was express permission from the Church required, from what I understand but don't quote me). The Church imposed these requirements relatively late.

I think that the fact of the couple and not the Church conferring the sacrament is also pretty clear from the fact that when two baptized Lutherans get married in the Lutheran Church, they have a vaild sacramental marriage. They don't get "remarried" when they enter the Catholic Church (just like I did not get rebaptized when I converted).

So I don't see why in many cases the second marriage could not in fact be sacramental. With or without a declaration of nullity it seems that in many cases that the spouses had improper intention in the case of the first "marriage" rendering it invalid, and proper intention and consent in the case of the "second marriage" (the true first marriage). 

I suppose that is why we have the annulment procedure, to get to the bottom of the situation. I would think that the Church would want to gave the annulment in order to reduce the possibility that the first marriage was valid and that they are receiving in a state of mortal sin by way of the second "marriage".

But I do not particularly see why someone's ability to receive or not receive communion should depend on an admittedly fallible process.They pass out annulments like candy in the US. Born in the Philippines? Good luck with it. So what if a woman is in an abusive relationship, gets "married" without the proper intention, gets divorced, asks for an annulment, and the annulment panel gets it wrong and says that she is validly married? She has to live the rest of her life single or be barred from communion because the Church got her annulment proceeding wrong? 

That's just a practical aspect of it, but let me give you a personal example why I have felt that some of the prior encylicals (or apostolic exhortations or whatever before the all knowing @Jack4 chimes in to correct me) like Veritatas Splendor might take an overly rigid view of moral theology. My older sister (non-Catholic) is divorced and remarried. Her first husband was very abusive. I will spare you the details, but at this very moment her ex-husband is serving a long jail sentence for raping another woman. That should give you a sense. Not exactly a model of the love between Christ and the Church. 

The man she remarried after her divorce is great. They along with my nephew have a great loving relationship. They are practically the Huxtables. So what if my sister happened to be Catholic and had gotten remarried without going through an annulment, or got remarried after her annulment was denied? I am really supposed to go up to them every day and be like "Live as brother and sister or I rebuke you! You are living in an objective state of grave sin that is contrary to the union of love between Christ and his Church!"? I am supposed to report to the priest at every Church she goes to Mass at that she has not followed the rules and should be denied communion? 

I mean, that's the rule and all. I get it. But they sure seem to be exhibiting Christ's love to me by the way that they treat each other. Is it really so easy to say that their state in life contradict's Christ's love? Maybe it is for some folks but something about that conclusion doesn't seem like it would be right to me. I am cool with leaving those difficult questions up to the pope and the other bishops and following their lead. Obviously they are a lot more competent to handle the matter than you or me.

I honestly don't have any answers here but as Pope Francis seems to say, perhaps there is not an easy black and white answer for everything. I had wondered whether Veritatas Splendor's attempt to make moral theology so "scientific", "logical" or "black and white" overstepped a bit or did  not leave sufficient room for a more "merciful" or flexible approach to the situations that people face in real life. For the most part I thought that this problem is what Pope Francis was attempting to start to deal with in Amoris. 

Again - this is not me trying to definitely prove that Familiaris is wrong. But just based on my own thought on it, I see enough that if Pope Francis were to allow them to participate in communion under certain circumstances, I don't think you or I could cleary say that he is contradicting the apostolic teaching.

That's the only way now. But it obviously won't be the only way if Pope Francis provides them another avenue.

That's just my two cents on it. I ain't saying I am right but I think there is room for discussion on it.

Goodnight.

But, our current teaching doesn't instruct you or anyone to go up to somebody and rebuke them. Nor, to be honest, will anyone know if they are living as brother or sister, not even their pastor. Our teaching already allows such couples (who can't separate for good reasons, like children) to receive communion. Who would know if they were living as siblings? The couple themselves, that's who. Their conscience would bother them. And so ultimately this comes down to people who want their consciences eased. But the Church can't do this for people. It's Jesus who calls divorce and remarriage adultery. Even if the Church was "nice" and let people in adulterous relationships take communion, that doesn't change what the relationship is - in the eyes of Jesus. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

But, our current teaching doesn't instruct you or anyone to go up to somebody and rebuke them. Nor, to be honest, will anyone know if they are living as brother or sister, not even their pastor. Our teaching already allows such couples (who can't separate for good reasons, like children) to receive communion. Who would know if they were living as siblings? The couple themselves, that's who. Their conscience would bother them. And so ultimately this comes down to people who want their consciences eased. But the Church can't do this for people. It's Jesus who calls divorce and remarriage adultery. Even if the Church was "nice" and let people in adulterous relationships take communion, that doesn't change what the relationship is - in the eyes of Jesus. 

AL is not a document to ease any and all consciences.  It does, however, realise and point out that some consciences might inaccurately accuse themselves of grave and mortal sin and the consequences.   The document is more about journeying with those in irregular circumstances rather than granting permission for anything against Church Teaching. I don't think AL is inferring, hinting or stating that those who are clearly living in mortal sin (through discernment) can ever receive Holy Communion:

 

Quote

 

Amoris Laetitia https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective 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 (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, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest.

As for the way of dealing with different "irregular" situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: "In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them",328 something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit

 

 

[Guest]

Could someone please post the footnote that seems to be at the centre of the controversy - if I have missed it as this thread unfolded - apologies.  If possible, I would like the whole footnote so I can get it into the context of the document.  I have computer woes just now that can make things difficult to impossible (can't afford to get fixed).  I am needing to find ways around the glitches - if possible.

Thank you in advance.

 

_____________

Edit:  OK - Mr Google found it for me.  I have to go out this afternoon and will need to leave it at this I think for a few hours.

351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, "I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy" (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist "is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak" (ibid., 47: 1039).

Don't have time to read it just now, but this looks like it might be an interesting commentary: http://aleteia.org/2016/04/14/amoris-laetitia-confused-by-footnote-351-a-look-at-329-can-help/

A very quick read, skim really, does indicate that it might be Canon Law (c915) that is the problem.  Canon Law can and does change, although I am not stating that it will in this instance.

 

[Guest]

If a person goes to Confession and/or consults a priest, surely the priest would be able to help them discern if in full knowledge and full consent to grave matter?  Seminarians study moral theology in the seminary and surely discernment re the aforementioned would be a prime focus.

Canon 915 and 916 are primarily for the priest re those who can or cannot receive Holy Communion.  Before refusing anyone Holy Communion, the priest must warn them in a personal manner of their very grave position and that he intends to not administer Holy Communion if they should approach the altar for Holy Communion.

Other than that, it is no one's concern nor business to judge those receiving Holy Communion and those who might not.  To not judge is a command of Jesus and The Gospel.

____________

This whole furore does remind me of that which took place over contraception after release of Humanae Vitae (I think it was that).  Most all expected that contraception would be permitted, but in the main it was still forbidden. Theologians and others, including laity, argued back and forth endlessly on the subject.    Some priests I know about were giving permission for contraception and were almost flooded with people into their confessionals apparently.  It seems that an awful lot of other married couples simply used contraception and ignored what The Church said.  It was less due to outright rebellion and more so due to the confusion that existed at that time.  It was not up to anyone at all to judge the priests giving permission, nor those who simply continued to use contraception - and oh my at the time did gossip fly around the parish re certain priests and individuals.  That does not mean one iota that contraception is always ok, it only means that it is never our right to judge individuals and certainly not to gossip. 

What we can do and it is right to do so is proclaim what The Church teaches.  We are commanded not to judge and that means to judge individuals/cases inclusive of the penalty for mortal sin.  If I should decide to actually judge, then I have put myself in a position of being judged with the inclusive penalty every bit as much as those who might be guilty of whatever.  In fact Jesus implies that the seriousness with which the guilty party of whatever is judged by God - that will be the very same seriousness and penalty of the one who sat in judgement.

We need to proclaim what The Church teaches and that is inclusive of the command by Jesus not to judge and what exactly that means.  Some might think that withholding judgement is giving others an excuse to disobey The Church and do what they please.  I do think that is almost a paranoid concept of fellow Catholics, of their consciences and of the workings of The Holy Spirit always and everywhere.  It is also a refusal to follow The Gospel and the Command of Jesus re judging others.  The Gospel and the Commands of Jesus not only put us on the right track of He who is The Way, The Truth and The Life - in a quite mysterious way at the same time our walking the way of Jesus is affecting the whole world in a positive manner. 

Got the time wrong for my appointment this afternoon by an hour.

[fides' Jack]

On 12/2/2016 at 6:10 PM, Jack4 said:

Autocorrect, eh?

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

amesome - thank you!  This is really what I was looking for.

[Guest]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:02 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

I have come down with an incredibly powerful flu/chest cold lately, so I may or may not be able to participate in this thread for the next few days.

Thinking of you, Nihil - with hope that flu/chest cold might be easing, with prayer too that you will soon be fighting fit and back on deck.