Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No, it would not necessarily mean that. Nothing has been proposed infallibly.

Well I am not convinced that if the Church admitted them to communion it would be error. Not admitting them is the current practice of the Church and I accept it. But if She were to propose a change I do not  think it would be easy for anyone to prove that this is error.

But I suppose that is for the debate table. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Peace

[Guest]

Some interesting article's in newsletter from Catholic Culture for 18th November2016: http://www.catholicculture.org/

Confused: It is all beyond me.  I'm waiting for the final outcome and at this point it seems like a bit of a 'Mexican standoff" to me.  Almost a power struggle? - i.e. who will be 'top dog' when this kerfuffle is over? The Holy Father will not respond to the dubia to date - and the signatories of the dubia have left it at the dubia with no further concrete action taken?  Meanwhile, some authorities in The Church seem to be taking sides.

I don't quite understand why it has had to take place so publicly and for the common good.  Could not the cardinals involved have approached Pope Francis privately and hashed things out that way?

Could "further concrete action" mean there will be/could be/perhaps be an actual split in The Church as a result?

If my above very broad 'assessment' is in any way incorrect, all corrections very welcome.    And I thank you in advance for your kindness and Charity in taking the time to do so.  Deo Gratius.

 

Edited November 19, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Nihil Obstat]

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I am not convinced that if the Church admitted them to communion it would be error. Not admitting them is the current practice of the Church and I accept it. But if She were to propose a change I do not  think it would be easy for anyone to prove that this is error.

But I suppose that is for the debate table. 

You read those three counterfactuals in the cardinals' letter, yes? How would you respond to that?

[Peace]

45 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You read those three counterfactuals in the cardinals' letter, yes? How would you respond to that?

Heh. I bet that Kasper and his ilk will have something for you to read soon enough.

I will have to get back to you because I am on a cell, but at first glance I did not think that one of the three must necessarily follow. 

[Jack4]

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The Holy Father will not respond to the dubia to date - and the signatories of the dubia have left it at the dubia with no further concrete action taken?  Meanwhile, some authorities in The Church seem to be taking sides.

I don't quite understand why it has had to take place so publicly and for the common good.  Could not the cardinals involved have approached Pope Francis privately and hashed things out that way?

 

Quoting from the OP of this thread, in which the text of Bishops is given:

Quote

 

...Ours is...an act of justice and charity....We have also carried out a specific duty....

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.

We hope that no one will judge us, unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing derives from the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.

 

 

[Jack4]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

One obvious answer, which **none of us want to be true** (insert additional emphasis here), is that Pope Francis himself has written, believes, and wishes to put into practice in the Church, a moral and theological error. 

There are other possibilities, all of which we would prefer to be true. But this is the one that absolutely must be avoided at any cost.

That is why the dubia are a gift to the Holy Father. Our four cardinals have in effect written to Pope Francis saying "please tell us this is not true", for his own sake, for the sake of the Church and us the Church Militant, and for their own sake too, bearing the heavy responsibilities of their episcopal office.

 

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

So, after cancelling his meeting with cardinals (of which there is precedent for), Pope Francis proceeded to have an interview with a paper about the Dubia and decried legalism.

I love the Holy Father, but unless anyone can provide a solid insight or missing factor, I'm afraid this is just petty. The cardinals were simply asking for a clarification. There's no need to humiliate them in a paper and essentially call them pharisees after you've refused to speak with them.

Just some quotes which I just took from the Holy Father's tweets. Whether or not you see a difference in he says and does (or rather,  refrains from doing), join me in praying for him.  

May we make God’s merciful love ever more evident in our world through dialogue, mutual acceptance and fraternal cooperation.

Prophecy is saying that there is something truer, more beautiful, greater, of greater good to which we are all called. 

We don’t have to go far or come up with grand projects to be charitable. Often the people closest to us could use our help.

In a world which has been damaged by the virus of indifference, the works of mercy are the best antidote.

Let us pray for our brothers and sisters who encounter discrimination and pay a personal price for their fidelity to the Gospel.

Let us ask the Lord that his word, source of light and life, may help Christians be ever more united.

Love is a patient effort by persons who dedicate themselves to listening and drawing closer to others.

The logic behind charity is to be willing to give up everything so that unity and love prevail.

We are disciples, but also missionaries, bringing Christ wherever he asks us to be present.

[Guest]

What would exclude a baptised Catholic from Holy Communion is mortal sin - i.e. grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.  Certainly as an example, marrying outside The Church is grave matter - but wouldn't it then be up to one's confessor or a priest to discern if full knowledge and full consent is also present?  If either or both of the latter two is missing, there is no mortal sin?  One of the possible exemptions for full knowledge and consent, according to the CCC, is:

Quote

1860 - Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

I really cannot understand why the dubia had to be very public by authorities in The Church.  Talking it all over (Chapter 8) with Pope Francis quietly would have been better in my book and to keep talking it over until an agreement is reached to share with the faithful.  Even if these bishops simply stated publicly that there are efforts underway to clarify what Pope Francis meant by statements in Chapter 8 and would be made public in due course.  I have read previously when this thread first got going the statement by the bishops about their reasoning re the lack of response to the dubai from Pope Francis .

The "in some cases" in the leaked papal Letter is a huge qualification and from what I do know of Catholics marrying outside The Church, in all cases their knowledge of what The Church actually does teach is very much lacking.  There is a real confusion 'out in the pews' between actual Church Teaching and what some Catholics choose to believe being adopted in ignorance by some Catholics as actual Church Teaching.  There is sufficient confusing "out in the pews" that some to many have just given up trying to understand the complexities (and at times quite 'lengthy quite complex complexities') of Church Teaching and go about what they personally think is right.

And whether the bishops intended it or not and their intentions are commendable, it does seem that those on the conservative side in practice are lining up behind the dubai and those with a liberal lean lining up behind Pope Francis.  

Just as there is tremendous confusion out here where grave matter is viewed as always mortal sin - and such concepts are of concern.

Edited November 19, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

My previous post is a general comment, not addressed to anyone in particular.  I omitted to prefix my post "General comment only"

[Nihil Obstat]

Canon 915 excludes such people from reception of Communion regardless of their imputed subjective culpability.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Canon 915 excludes such people from reception of Communion regardless of their imputed subjective culpability.

Thanks Nihil - I live and I learn.  I had to look up the Catholic Culture Dictionary (see below).  If some situations would indeed fall under interdict or excommunication, then Canon Law is clear under Canon 915 (and I must admit, I still have no idea whatsoever even after reading the definitions, what on earth those might mean).  I think that Canon Law can and does sometimes be changed? if, I guess, the Holy Father and Magisterium (or whomsoever!) felt that it needed changing for some reason.

I have much heartfelt compassion for many Catholics, especially those in the workforce and/or with children.   Living alone at 71yrs of age, I have the time to get on the computer and so some researching - and Phatmass and CA are excellent resources for questions and information.  Many Catholics do not have the time - and today I tend to think not much inclination either very often.  Life is too stressful and if one is going to put bread and butter on the table daily, one needs one's job especially with children.  With children too the cost of Catholic education.  Other stresses too - without delving into the complexities of Church Teaching at times.  It draws my heartfelt compassion.  And most especially where the poor are concerned: no car, no computer, no cell phone or mobile - perhaps not even sufficient funds for bread and butter on the table daily, let alone pay bills - and everything inbetween.

Interdict: A censure forbidding the faithful, while still remaining in communion with the Church, the use of certain sacred privileges, such as Christian burial, some of the sacraments, and attendance at liturgical services. It does not exclude from Church membership, nor does it necessarily imply a personal fault of any individual affected by the interdict. When imposed for a fixed period, it is a vindictive penalty because of some grave act done against the common good of the Church by one or more parishes. Usual religious services are curtailed, but sacraments may be given to the dying, marriages celebrated, and Holy Communion administered if the interdict is general or local (not personal). A general interdict may be inflicted only by the Holy See. Parishes or persons may be interdicted only by the local ordinary.

Excommunication: An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with formal solemnities on persons notoriously obstinate to reconciliation. Some excommunicated persons are vitandi (to be avoided), others tolerati (tolerate). No one is vitandus unless that person has been publicly excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and it is expressly stated that the person is "to be avoided," Anyone who lays violent hands on the Pope is automatically vitandus.

In general, the effects of excommunication affect the person's right to receive the sacraments, or Christian burial, until the individual repents and is reconciled with the Church. In order for an excommunication to take effect, the person must have been objectively guilty of the crime charged. (Etym. Latin ex-, from + communicare, to communicate: excommunicatio, exclusion from a community.)

 

______________

Quote

Canon 915: Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

"Manifest grave sin" I take it would mean mortal sin.  There are three conditions necessary for mortal sin, not only grave matter. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

No, manifest grave sin is by no means identical to mortal sin. 

[Guest]

 

SHEEESH!

[PhuturePriest]

On 11/18/2016 at 10:36 PM, BarbaraTherese said:

What would exclude a baptised Catholic from Holy Communion is mortal sin - i.e. grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.  Certainly as an example, marrying outside The Church is grave matter - but wouldn't it then be up to one's confessor or a priest to discern if full knowledge and full consent is also present?  If either or both of the latter two is missing, there is no mortal sin?  One of the possible exemptions for full knowledge and consent, according to the CCC, is:

I really cannot understand why the dubia had to be very public by authorities in The Church.  Talking it all over (Chapter 8) with Pope Francis quietly would have been better in my book and to keep talking it over until an agreement is reached to share with the faithful.  Even if these bishops simply stated publicly that there are efforts underway to clarify what Pope Francis meant by statements in Chapter 8 and would be made public in due course.  I have read previously when this thread first got going the statement by the bishops about their reasoning re the lack of response to the dubai from Pope Francis .

The "in some cases" in the leaked papal Letter is a huge qualification and from what I do know of Catholics marrying outside The Church, in all cases their knowledge of what The Church actually does teach is very much lacking.  There is a real confusion 'out in the pews' between actual Church Teaching and what some Catholics choose to believe being adopted in ignorance by some Catholics as actual Church Teaching.  There is sufficient confusing "out in the pews" that some to many have just given up trying to understand the complexities (and at times quite 'lengthy quite complex complexities') of Church Teaching and go about what they personally think is right.

And whether the bishops intended it or not and their intentions are commendable, it does seem that those on the conservative side in practice are lining up behind the dubai and those with a liberal lean lining up behind Pope Francis.  

Just as there is tremendous confusion out here where grave matter is viewed as always mortal sin - and such concepts are of concern.

Canon 915 aside, I don't think anyone except perhaps the most extreme of traddies are saying people who are in invalid marriages without knowing that is a sin are committing a sin when they receive. The point is that, once their pastor has informed them of this, they now know and must cease all conjugal relations until their relationship status can be determined. I think that's one of the main distinctions which has for whatever reason not been made. Many on the "left" like Kasper have been saying much the same that you have, and many on the "right" have objected, but they've been talking past each other and I haven't seen anyone make this distinction. I have no doubt that, due to the horrid catechesis of the previous generation, many genuinely don't know they can't just get remarried over and over again and still receive communion. In such a case their reception is not individually mortally sinful, but it would become so once they were made aware of it.

[Guest]

Quote

 

Canon 915: Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

BarbaraTherese: "Manifest grave sin" I take it would mean mortal sin.  There are three conditions necessary for mortal sin, not only grave matter. 

Nihil Obstat: No, manifest grave sin is by no means identical to mortal sin. 

 

If "manifest grave sin" is not identical to mortal sin, then someone in the state of Grace could be denied Holy Communion and/or fall under either excommunication or interdict? 

It seems to me such an horrific situation to be denied Holy Communion.  Declaring an excommunication or interdict are extremely serious moves to make and seemingly without any obligation to discern if the person is in the state of Grace or not i.e. observable in some way (manifest) grave (grave matter) sin (three conditions for the matter to be grave) .  If I  am denied Holy Communion, for example, it is an implication that I am in a state of mortal sin?

I don't get it - but then I do know Canon Law is not considered a minefield for nothing.

6 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Canon 915 aside, I don't think anyone except perhaps the most extreme of traddies are saying people who are in invalid marriages without knowing that is a sin are committing a sin when they receive. The point is that, once their pastor has informed them of this, they now know and must cease all conjugal relations until their relationship status can be determined. I think that's one of the main distinctions which has for whatever reason not been made. Many on the "left" like Kasper have been saying much the same that you have, and many on the "right" have objected, but they've been talking past each other and I haven't seen anyone make this distinction. I have no doubt that, due to the horrid catechesis of the previous generation, many genuinely don't know they can't just get remarried over and over again and still receive communion. In such a case their reception is not individually mortally sinful, but it would become so once they were made aware of it.

Thank you for the reply, PP.  Trust the studies are all cruising along ok.  Prayer for your vocation too.

When I received the formal letter advising that my annulment had been approved, tacked on to it was the recommendation that I not seek to re-marry.  I had no intention anyway since that annulment many years ago now was sought to allow me back then to at least consider and discern religious life.

But the "tacked on" made me really angry and so I obtained an appointment with the monsignor representative of the Marriage Annulment Tribunal in my diocese.  I asked Msgr. T. if he had ever been married before.  He answered in the negative.  And so I told him he had no idea whatsoever just how hard it was going to be to stay celibate after 15 years of what I had thought was a very healthy marriage in every way (mistakenly incidentally).  After I separated from my then 'husband', I had a dreadful time with celibacy and was advised by a priest to "trust in God" - it was no answer for me really.  I was already trusting in God very desperately, but it was not easing my daily struggle with staying celibate threatening depression - and probably triggering bipolar episodes taking my life apart and landing me in a psychiatric hospital.  Nor, I felt, could I discern religious life with my ongoing struggle. Msgr. T. and I had an in depth discussion and he finally said that I could re-marry if I wanted to do so but to seek counselling first.  I replied "I would do so anyway".  From my perspective (although I did not share it with Msgr. T.) it was to make him aware of what was actually being asked by advising me not to remarry.  I think and hope I just might have got my point across.

I eventually did win my battle with staying celibate.  How and when, I have no idea whatsoever other than Deo Gratius.  It was a long difficult journey not event.

Quote

 In such a case their reception is not individually mortally sinful, but it would become so once they were made aware of it.

So very easy to write I know.  And no reflection on you at all, FP.  It is what The Church teaches.

It is all very well to advise a couple to live as brother and sister or similar such advice - but does our hierarchy have any idea just what a tremendously difficult thing they are asking.  Tremendously! Overwhelmingly so in possibility.  It is made so in such an instance mainly because of the ongoing sexual relationship previously and now needing to abandon same completely.

[PhuturePriest]

1 minute ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If "manifest grave sin" is not identical to mortal sin, then someone in the state of Grace could be denied Holy Communion and/or fall under either excommunication or interdict? 

It seems to me such an horrific situation to be denied Holy Communion.  Declaring an excommunication or interdict are extremely serious moves to make and seemingly without any obligation to discern if the person is in the state of Grace or not i.e. observable in some way (manifest) grave (grave matter) sin (three conditions for the matter to be grave) .  If I  am denied Holy Communion, for example, it is an implication that I am in a state of mortal sin?

I don't get it - but then I do know Canon Law is not considered a minefield for nothing.

Thank you for the reply, PP.  Trust the studies are all cruising along ok.  Prayer for your vocation too.

When I received the formal letter advising that my annulment had been approved, tacked on to it was the recommendation that I not seek to re-marry.  I had no intention anyway since that annulment many years ago now was sought to allow me back then to at least consider and discern religious life.

But the "tacked on" made me really angry and so I obtained an appointment with the monsignor representative of the Marriage Annulment Tribunal in my diocese.  I asked Msgr. T. if he had ever been married before.  He answered in the negative.  And so I told him he had no idea whatsoever just how hard it was going to be to stay celibate after 15 years of what I had thought was a very healthy marriage in every way (mistakenly incidentally).  After I separated from my then 'husband', I had a dreadful time with celibacy and was advised by a priest to "trust in God" - it was no answer for me really.  I was already trusting in God very desperately, but it was not easing my daily struggle with staying celibate threatening depression - and probably triggering bipolar episodes taking my life apart and landing me in a psychiatric hospital.  Nor, I felt, could I discern religious life with my ongoing struggle. Msgr. T. and I had an in depth discussion and he finally said that I could re-marry if I wanted to do so but to seek counselling first.  I replied "I would do so anyway".  From my perspective (although I did not share it with Msgr. T.) it was to make him aware of what was actually being asked by advising me not to remarry.  I think and hope I just might have got my point across.

I eventually did win my battle with staying celibate.  How and when, I have no idea whatsoever other than Deo Gratius.  It was a long difficult journey not event.

So very easy to write I know.  And no reflection on you at all, FP.  It is what The Church teaches.

It is all very well to advise a couple to live as brother and sister or similar such advice - but does our hierarchy have any idea just what a tremendously difficult thing they are asking.  Tremendously! Overwhelmingly so in possibility.  It is made so in such an instance mainly because of the ongoing sexual relationship previously and now needing to abandon same completely.

I have no doubt such a thing is incredibly difficult and was so for you. Thank you for sticking it out with God even when it was really difficult -- it's certainly a testament of faith and fidelity for everyone to look to, especially us seminarians and priests.