We’re getting closer to home…
thetablet.org: Putting ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Into Practice by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
Recently, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, published a book entitled “The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.” The short book outlines the canonical and moral procedures necessary in order to effectuate the internal solution. I am anxiously waiting to read this book
Ed Pentin covered this here:
Vatican Cardinal: Some in Irregular Unions Can Receive the Sacraments
subtitle: Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio pens short booklet on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ arguing the pastoral practice could be acceptable if such persons “desire to change” their sinful situation.
Catholics living in “irregular unions” including some civilly remarried divorcees can receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist if they desire to change their sinful situation but cannot amend it because it would lead to further sin, the head of the Vatican’s department for interpreting Church law has said.
As a reminder, there are many (including Cardinal Muller, the prefect of the CDF) who see this as a clear break from Catholic tradition and even the words of Our Lord.
The Pope Is Silent, But Cardinal Müller Speaks. Who Responds To the “Dubia” This Way
|Q: The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must commit to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?
A: Of course, it is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments. The confusion on this point also concerns the failure to accept the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” with the clear doctrine of the “intrinsece malum.” […] For us marriage is the expression of participation in the unity between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride. This is not, as some said during the Synod, a simple vague analogy. No! This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.
Thank you for posting, and for the link to the Tablet article. This article is all but incomprehensible, just in the poor grammar, let alone the lack of any development of a logical argument, and what of the phrase in the 6th paragraph: “recognizing the dissolubility of marriage.” Did he mean to say indissolubility? If the good bishop is cool with having his ideas presented in such a slipshod manner in the Tablet, well, who am I to make a fuss?
I love the scenario of the repentant spouse coming back “home” and offering to be a good husband (or wife), and the spouse saying, “Sorry, while we’re still technically married in the eyes of the Church, the Church recognizes the fact that I and my new spouse can participate in the Sacraments and the life of the parish, so drop dead.”
I’m praying to St. Michael the Archangel, and offering up my prayers and fasting for our Holy Father and the Church.
Analysis and conclusions that are well worth our reading and reflection are found in the article accessed here:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/09/13/shooting-the-orthodox-catholic-messenger/
Example excerpts include:
“the dispute revolves around pastoral and theological issues concerned with the well-being of the subjectively innocent person.
For example, whether he should receive Holy Communion despite being aware that he departs from Catholic belief and practice. Or how best to deal with the ignorance and compulsion that trap him in a situation that, despite his innocence, is actually (i.e., objectively) harmful to him and others.
To date, these proponents have not offered their critics precise solutions that safeguard the well being and rights of all parties. This is deeply troubling, but not the ultimate source of concern.
The real problem is that some of the innovators do not base their justification on the objective-subjective distinction, but on a radically different claim that the subjectively innocent person is actually doing what is proper under the circumstances.”
So, if the subjectively innocent person is actually doing what is proper under the circumstances, does that mean God, Holy God, commands actions that are intrinsically evil and immoral?
May the innovators recover themselves from these logical conclusions and may we the faithful be given clear teaching that is definitive……