Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course money is a concern for those who do not have it. But it is not integral to the process (obviously), and in cases of genuine need there are arrangements that can be made. 

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

Of course money is a concern for those who do not have it. But it is not integral to the process (obviously), and in cases of genuine need there are arrangements that can be made. 

So why is Pope Francis doing this then? If it's easy to get annulments why not just do that? Not trying to be blatantly cynical. I know a divorse or annulment should never be the goal. I've never been married. Parents divorced when I was in the 5th grade. Mom remarried and stayed married or "married" until my protestant stepfather recently passed. I'm guessing she could of got an annulment but just chose not to. I never asked her.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

So why is Pope Francis doing this then? If it's easy to get annulments why not just do that? Not trying to be blatantly cynical. I know a divorse or annulment should never be the goal. I've never been married. Parents divorced when I was in the 5th grade. Mom remarried and stayed married or "married" until my protestant stepfather recently passed. I'm guessing she could of got an annulment but just chose not to. I never asked her.

I am not sure what you are asking. 

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I am not sure what you are asking. 

Why is Pope Francis trying to change the teaching? If annulments are fairly easily attainable(I'm not saying they necessarily should be but I've heard they are?) then why don't people just do that? Why does the pope feel the need to change the teaching? If certain people were more easily getting annulments than other certain groups then I could see why the pope may be taking this approach. That's not the case though right? Everyone has the same accessibility to annulments. So just get an annulment. No need for Priest's to discern each individual case then.

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

30 minutes ago, Josh said:

Why is Pope Francis trying to change the teaching? If annulments are fairly easily attainable(I'm not saying they necessarily should be but I've heard they are?) then why don't people just do that? Why does the pope feel the need to change the teaching? If certain people were more easily getting annulments than other certain groups then I could see why the pope may be taking this approach. That's not the case though right? Everyone has the same accessibility to annulments. So just get an annulment. No need for Priest's to discern each individual case then.

 

Well because in reality not all marriages can be annulled. Because they are valid. In fact it is prudent to presume that most marriages cannot be annulled. Although Pope Francis has expressed opinions to the contrary... 

To be more exact, we are talking about a marriage being found null, not being made null. And some marriages, being valid, could not be found null without major mistakes or negligence somewhere in the process.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

https://youtu.be/VG1_zmn-Ryc  World Over - 2016-12-15 – Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia, Cardinal Raymond Burke with Raymond Arroyo

 

 

(By the way, this is an excellent interview, and I highly recommend everyone following this topic to watch it.

If you would rather read a transcript, it is available in full at this link.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting point from his eminence. Mr. Arroyo asks "has the pope already answered your questions", for instance through his response to the policies of the bishops of Buenos Aires to which the Pope responded favourably. Cardinal Burke says in essence "no, because the question is not 'what does the pope think' or 'what does the pope intend A.L. to mean', but rather 'what does the Church teach?'"

Burke: Not at all. He’s given his own opinion on the matter. The question can only be answered in terms of what the Church has always taught and practiced, as for instance is illustrated in the book which was published for the 2014 synod Remaining in the Truth of Christ. And it’s one thing [for] the pope can say what is written in Amoris Laetitia is interpreted correctly to mean that an individual priest can permit someone who’s in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments without a firm purpose of amendment, but that doesn’t resolve the question. The question is, what does the Church teach? It’s not a matter of…some speculative idea I may have about how to approach these questions, but how does Christ in His Church address such questions? That’s, until that answer is provided, we remain in a confused state.

[Jack4]

Lifesitenews previews of +Sarah's God or Nothing

- One of the major difficulties at present is found in ambiguities or personal statements about important doctrinal points, which can lead to erroneous and dangerous opinions. These bad habits disorient many of the faithful. Sometimes contradictory answers to very serious questions are given by the clergy and the theologians. How can the people of God help but be disturbed by such behaviour? How can the baptized be certain of what is good or bad? Confusion about the right direction to take is the worst malady of our era.

- Contrary to the surrounding subjectivism, the church must know how to tell the truth, with humility, respect, and clarity.

 

See also https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cardinal-sarah-idea-of-separating-magisterial-teaching-from-pastoral-practi

[Peace]

Apparently before his election Pope Benedict was in the "allow some divorced and remarried to participate in communion" camp but later changed his view to conform with Familiaris. His article below goes a bit into lenient practices among certain early fathers of the Church, but here was his conclusion at the time:

http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

Quote

Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. Such an arrangement seems to me to be for two reasons in accord with the tradition:

a) We must emphatically recall the room for discretion that is built into every annulment process. This discretion and the inequities that inevitably come from the educational situation of the affected parties and from their financial possibilities should warn against the idea that justice can in this way be flawlessly satisfied. Moreover, many things are simply not subject to legal judgment and are nonetheless real. The procedural affair must necessarily limit itself to the legally provable, but can for that very reason pass over crucial facts. Above all, formal criteria (formal errors or conscious omission of ecclesiastical form) thereby receive a preponderance that leads to injustices. Overall, the transferal of the question to the act establishing the marriage is indeed legally unavoidable, but still a narrowing of the problem that cannot fully do justice to the nature of human action. The annulment process provides a concrete set of criteria to determine that the standards of marriage among believers are not applicable to a particular marriage. But it does not exhaust the problem and therefore cannot claim that strict exclusivity that had to be attributed to it under the reign of a certain form of thought.

b) The requirement that a second marriage have proven itself over a long time as a moral greatness and have been lived in the spirit of faith in fact corresponds to that type of forbearance that is palpable in Basil, where after a long penance Communion is granted to the “Digamus” (= the one living in a second marriage) without terminating the second marriage: in trust in in the mercy of God, who does not leave the penance unanswered. If in the second marriage moral obligations to the children, to the family, and so also to the woman have arisen, and no similar commitments from the first marriage exist, and if thus for moral reasons the abandonment of the second marriage is inadmissible, and on the other hand practically speaking abstinence presents no real possibility (magnorum est, says Gregory II), the opening up of community in Communion after a period of probation appears to be no less than just and to be fully in line with the Church's tradition: The granting of communio cannot here depend on an act that is either immoral or practically speaking impossible.

The distinction attempted with the mutual relatedness of thesis 1 and 2 seems to be in accordance with the caution of Trent, although as a practical rule it goes beyond it: the anathema against a teaching that wants to make the Church's fundamental form an error or at least a custom that should be overcome, remains in full vigor. Marriage is a sacramentum, it stands in the irrevocable fundamental form of the decisive decision. But this does not mean that the Communion community of the church does not also encompass those people who accept this teaching and this life principle, but are in a special predicament, in which they especially need the full communion with the Body of Christ. The Church's faith will also thus remain a sign of contradiction: That is essential to it, and precisely by this fact it knows that it is following the Lord, who foretold to his disciples that they should not expect to be above the master, who was rejected by the pious and by the liberals, by Jews and by Gentiles.

Even as late as 1998 Pope Benedict seemed to believe that there might be room for consideration of the question:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html#_ftnref2

Quote

c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

Of course, his past views have no authoritative weight considering that he currently appears to view the possibility as closed.  But I think the fact that even Benedict has been on both sides of the fence on this issue indicates that the issue is not so black and white as many would have it.

12 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Interesting point from his eminence. Mr. Arroyo asks "has the pope already answered your questions", for instance through his response to the policies of the bishops of Buenos Aires to which the Pope responded favourably. Cardinal Burke says in essence "no, because the question is not 'what does the pope think' or 'what does the pope intend A.L. to mean', but rather 'what does the Church teach?'"

Burke: Not at all. He’s given his own opinion on the matter. The question can only be answered in terms of what the Church has always taught and practiced, as for instance is illustrated in the book which was published for the 2014 synod Remaining in the Truth of Christ. And it’s one thing [for] the pope can say what is written in Amoris Laetitia is interpreted correctly to mean that an individual priest can permit someone who’s in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments without a firm purpose of amendment, but that doesn’t resolve the question. The question is, what does the Church teach? It’s not a matter of…some speculative idea I may have about how to approach these questions, but how does Christ in His Church address such questions? That’s, until that answer is provided, we remain in a confused state.

Hmm. It seems to me that the question is "Who decides what the Church teaches?"

Unless either of them is quoting Scripture verbatim or repeating an infallibly defined statement, strictly speaking Pope Francis has an opinion as to what the Church teaches, and Cardinal Burke has an opinion as to what the Church teaches.

I can't help see statements like the one above and think that Cardinal Burke's reaction would be "That is what the Church teaches" if Pope Francis replies to the dubia with an answer that Cardinal Burke agrees with, but would respond with "That is not what the Church teaches" if Pope Francis replies to the dubia with an answer that Cardinal Burke disagrees with.

But perhaps that is an unfair judgment. Perhaps we should expect that Cardinal Burke would get in line if Pope Francis reaches a conclusion that differs from Cardinal Burke.

Ultimately it seems to come back to a question of authority to decide. And the living Pope has it.

[Nihil Obstat]

But the question of what the Church teaches is an objective one. It is perfectly possible, objectively, that Pope Francis' opinion and Church teaching are not identical. No pope has the authority to change that.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

But the question of what the Church teaches is an objective one. It is perfectly possible, objectively, that Pope Francis' opinion and Church teaching are not identical. No pope has the authority to change that.

Sure. Pope Francis can be wrong. So can the statement in Familiaris that we have been discussing. . .

It seems that the only solution for that is Matt. 16:19. Any pope can teach error but no pope can define error to which others are bound. For non-infalliable things people are still allowed to respectfully disagree and try to persuade the Pope to change his teaching or rules. Many things can be interesting to discuss, but at the end of the day I guess I just prefer to defer to the chain of command when it comes to the ultimate conclusion. They have Holy Orders so I guess I see it as their job to teach and my job to fall in line when it comes down to it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Would you have said the same thing to John XXII or Honorius?

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Would you have said the same thing to John XXII or Honorius?

If you could kindly state your question a bit more precisely I will try to answer it.  I assume that you mean "Would I have followed John XXII or Honorius at the period of time when they were espousing XYZ incorrect teaching."  In this case I assume that XYZ relates to Jesus's two wills and the beatific vision.

If neither of those teachings were defined as heretical at the time that they were taught, and I were alive at that time, I would imagine that I would have followed them. At the time I doubt that I would have been able to discern with such full confidence that they were wrong and I was correct, so much that I would feel justified in refusing to follow my pope.

What would you have done under those circumstances?

You and I may both be following an incorrect teaching in Familiaris right now for all we know.  But the same holds - if I concluded on my own that the teaching in Familiaris was probably incorrect, I would still follow it until instructed otherwise by the people whose authority I am under.

[Nihil Obstat]

Their teachings were heretical objectively though. Something doesn't become an error only when we have formally pronounced it.

[Jack4]

11 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Their teachings were heretical objectively though. Something doesn't become an error only when we have formally pronounced it.

Q: Which was the deepest point before Mariana Trench was discovered?

Ans: Mariana Trench. 

13 hours ago, Peace said:

I assume that you mean "Would I have followed John XXII or Honorius at the period of time when they were espousing XYZ incorrect teaching."  In this case I assume that XYZ relates to Jesus's two wills and the beatific vision.

If neither of those teachings were defined as heretical at the time that they were taught, and I were alive at that time, I would imagine that I would have followed them. At the time I doubt that I would have been able to discern with such full confidence that they were wrong and I was correct, so much that I would feel justified in refusing to follow my pope.

What would you have done under those circumstances?

At least as far as Honorius and his monothelitism are concerned, Scripture seems expressly clear (Lk 22:44) to me.

ETA 22:42